Jump to content

No cake for you! Store won't serve 3-year-old 'Adolf Hitler Campbell'


Recommended Posts

They took the kids into custody.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011403640.html

Washington & the Nation

PH2009011403649.jpg

Heath Campbell, son Adolf and wife Deborah

in Easton, Pa. The couple also have two

daughters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation and

Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie.

(By Rich Schultz -- Associated Press)

Thursday, January 15, 2009; Page A02

Children in Hitler Cake Controversy in State Custody

Three New Jersey siblings whose names have N*zi connotations have been placed in state custody, police in Holland Township said. The children, ages 3 to under 1, were removed from their home Friday. They drew attention last month when a supermarket bakery refused to put the name of the oldest -- Adolf Hitler Campbell -- on a birthday cake. State workers did not tell police why the children were taken, police Sgt. John Harris said.

SOURCE: Associated Press

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And you do a damn good job of it, too.

Plenty of times and I'm usually the only white/American person there. It's America equal rights is equal rights not equal when you agree with it. The parents no matter how ****ed up have the rig

The parents named him that well after Hitler committed his acts. Obama was born well before Hussein became a monster. And the store can refuse service for any reason. If your name was

So, the state took the kids because of their names? BS!!!

They should sue!

"The State" is (properly) not saying why they took the kids. Don't you think it's possible that people who named their children Adolph Hitler and Aryann Nation might have some other child rearing issues?

Oh, and I'm sure they will sue. Bet a ton of dirt on them comes out if they do.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
"The State" is (properly) not saying why they took the kids. Don't you think it's possible that people who named their children Adolph Hitler and Aryann Nation might have some other child rearing issues?

Oh, and I'm sure they will sue. Bet a ton of dirt on them comes out if they do.

The State can't just come and take your kids, without explanation, if the kids were beaten, starving or victims of neglect sure. However this doesn't seem to be the case IMO. I see nothing wrong with the names, it might touch a nerve but who cares? That's the other persons problem. One of my closes friends who is Cuban, his first name is Fidel.

FTA

He said he was raised not to avoid people of other races but not to mix with them socially or romantically either. But he said he would try to raise his children differently.

"Say he grows up and hangs out with black people. That's fine, I don't really care," he said. "That's his choice."

Link to post
Share on other sites
The State can't just come and take your kids, without explanation, if the kids were beaten, starving or victims of neglect sure. However this doesn't seem to be the case IMO. I see nothing wrong with the names, it might touch a nerve but who cares? That's the other persons problem. One of my closes friends who is Cuban, his first name is Fidel.

FTA

He said he was raised not to avoid people of other races but not to mix with them socially or romantically either. But he said he would try to raise his children differently.

"Say he grows up and hangs out with black people. That's fine, I don't really care," he said. "That's his choice."

They aren't telling us why they took the kids. That doesn't mean they are telling Mama and Papa Aryan Nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The State" is (properly) not saying why they took the kids. Don't you think it's possible that people who named their children Adolph Hitler and Aryann Nation might have some other child rearing issues?

Oh, and I'm sure they will sue. Bet a ton of dirt on them comes out if they do.

Well...

These parents were definitely looking for trouble and they found it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts if some Muslims named their kids Osama and Yassir Arafat the state wouldn't dare try and take custody of the kids.

The parents are a*sholes, no doubt, but if the state can arbitrarily take custody of children because their parents are a*sholes, well... just imagine where alot of us would wind up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well...

These parents were definitely looking for trouble and they found it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts if some Muslims named their kids Osama and Yassir Arafat the state wouldn't dare try and take custody of the kids.

The parents are a*sholes, no doubt, but if the state can arbitrarily take custody of children because their parents are a*sholes, well... just imagine where alot of us would wind up.

Dom has a point though. These parents named a child Adolph Hitler. You don't think they may have some other issues behind what we see in public?

These parents are ****ed up. To be honest, the life that child will have to lead now because those selfish bastards should be considered worthy enough of taking the children away from them. That kid better prepare himself for years of abuse and beatdowns.

It's simply not right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dom has a point though. These parents named a child Adolph Hitler. You don't think they may have some other issues behind what we see in public?

These parents are ****ed up. To be honest, the life that child will have to lead now because those selfish bastards should be considered worthy enough of taking the children away from them. That kid better prepare himself for years of abuse and beatdowns.

It's simply not right.

So you think state custody will be an improvement?

Well... from what I could ascertain from that article, it doesn't sound like Heath Campbell is a bad father. I still think he's an as*hole but that doesn't give the state any right to take his children from him.

Edited by Jet Moses
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think state custody will be an improvement?

Well... from what I could ascertain from that article, it doesn't sound like Heath Campbell is a bad father. I still think he's an as*hole but that doesn't give the state any right to take his children from him.

From what you could ascertain in the article? Are you kidding? From that you determine that this neo-**** isn't a bad father? Because some cop claims he never saw him beat his kids? I don't doubt the state sometimes takes kids for ****ed up reasons, but you don't know. I don't see why you automatically speculate that they don't have just cause here. There is a hearing Wednesday. Have a little patience. I'm sure little Adolph will not get ****ed up any worse where's he's going than where he's been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange, why to secretive? When kids get taken away the reason is usually given. Even some of the worst cases get release to the public. Strange case indeed, or maybe they are trying to CYA. We''ll never know, I guess.

They DO NOT release family court **** to the press. They have to release it to the family. IF the family isn't talking there is no reason to know. There hasn't been a hearing yet. It's not that strange at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
From what you could ascertain in the article? Are you kidding? From that you determine that this neo-**** isn't a bad father? Because some cop claims he never saw him beat his kids? I don't doubt the state sometimes takes kids for ****ed up reasons, but you don't know. I don't see why you automatically speculate that they don't have just cause here. There is a hearing Wednesday. Have a little patience. I'm sure little Adolph will not get ****ed up any worse where's he's going than where he's been.

It sounds to me like you want to see these kids get hurt. I can tell you one thing, whatever hateful crap their parents were able to drum into those childrens brains will be validated while they are in state custody.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They DO NOT release family court **** to the press. They have to release it to the family. IF the family isn't talking there is no reason to know. There hasn't been a hearing yet. It's not that strange at all

IDK, maybe the laws are different there, but I worked in Family/Juvenile court and they DID release this type of stuff ALL the time. "Kids were living in filth" "Kids were sexually abused" etc. etc. I mean they even released the kids names, that's one thing this state (FL) doesn't allow, but they do release the reason. Also by law the parents have to have a hearing within 24hrs of removal.

EDIT: The kids were taken away yesterday I'm guessing from the date of the article.

Edited by rillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
IDK, maybe the law are different there, but I worked in Family/Juvenile court and they DID release this type of stuff ALL the time. "Kids were living in filth" "Kids were sexually abused" etc. etc. I mean they even released the kids names, that's one thing this state (FL) doesn't allow, but they do release the reason. Also by law the parents have to have a hearing within 24hrs of removal.

EDIT: The kids were taken away yesterday I'm guessing from the date of the article.

Based on the public information of this case, the only logical conclusion I can draw is these kids were taken into state custody because a state agency arbitrarily decided that they didn't approve of the parents political views.

That is a frightening precedent being set.

And anybody who thinks that the state can or will protect children needs to have their head examined:

http://www.nj.com/war/ledger/index.ssf?/news/stories/0110govdyfs.html

[url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/08/report_23_kids_died_from_abuse.html]

Edited by Jet Moses
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet little Adolf Hitler Campbell has a pet gerbil names Goebbels. What's up with his mother? Twenty-five?! Look at her teeth. Did she eat frozen piss every day of her life to get them that perfect shade of yellow? Now that's what I call persistence!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... from what I could ascertain from that article, it doesn't sound like Heath Campbell is a bad father. I still think he's an as*hole but that doesn't give the state any right to take his children from him.

You truly think it's as simple as that? That the state agency in charge of protecting children simply decided, "The parents are ****s so let's take the kids"?

There are a lot of white supremeacists with swastikas around the home but they keep their children. Surely there is something else going on here.

Edited by kelticwizard
Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds to me like you want to see these kids get hurt. I can tell you one thing, whatever hateful crap their parents were able to drum into those childrens brains will be validated while they are in state custody.

I don't want them to get hurt at all. I feel for them for the situation they are in, both the fact that they have been taken by the state, that their parents seem to be racist *******s or worse and that there may have been some serious abuse.

Based on the public information of this case, the only logical conclusion I can draw is these kids were taken into state custody because a state agency arbitrarily decided that they didn't approve of the parents political views.

That is a frightening precedent being set.

And anybody who thinks that the state can or will protect children needs to have their head examined:

http://www.nj.com/war/ledger/index.ssf?/news/stories/0110govdyfs.html

Is this a ****ing joke? THERE IS NO PUBLIC INFORMATION ON THIS CASE. Yet you draw the "only logical conclusion"? Are you ****ing kidding? You are basing your entire "logical conclusion" on rampant speculation and your prejudice and mistrust of the government. I don't doubt that the State ****s these kinds of cases up, however, there is the very distinct possibility that there has been some very real abuse in the case. Do you know if they were beaten? Sexually abused? No, neither do I. To make a "logical conclusion" based upon the State's no comment is not logical at all.

We don't even know where these children are being held. They may be with the State, they may be with family members. We don't know, but you have determined that this is a politically motivated and completely arbitrary decision of the State.

Earlier you "ascertained" that Heath Campbell was not a bad father. You based this on two things, the fact he bought his kids a birthday cake and that a cop stated that based upon knowing Heath Campbell for ten years he's never known him to abuse the kids and they were talked about lovingly.What does that tell you? Either he's a personal friend or Heath Campbell has at least a ten year criminal history. He must be father of the year!

Edited by #27TheDominator
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want them to get hurt at all. I feel for them for the situation they are in, both the fact that they have been taken by the state, that their parents seem to be racist *******s or worse and that there may have been some serious abuse.

Their also may not have been. What's your point? That the state can arbitrarily take somebody's children based on an assumption?

Is this a ****ing joke? THERE IS NO PUBLIC INFORMATION ON THIS CASE. Yet you draw the "only logical conclusion"? Are you ****ing kidding? You are basing your entire "logical conclusion" on rampant speculation and your prejudice and mistrust of the government. I don't doubt that the State ****s these kinds of cases up, however, there is the very distinct possibility that there has been some very real abuse in the case. Do you know if they were beaten? Sexually abused? No, neither do I. To make a "logical conclusion" based upon the State's no comment is not logical at all.

You are making alot of assumptions.

We don't even know where these children are being held.

That doesn't bother you?

They may be with the State, they may be with family members. We don't know, but you have determined that this is a politically motivated and completely arbitrary decision of the State.

Correct. And I base my determination on the public information I am privvy to.

Earlier you "ascertained" that Heath Campbell was not a bad father. You based this on two things, the fact he bought his kids a birthday cake and that a cop stated that based upon knowing Heath Campbell for ten years he's never known him to abuse the kids and they were talked about lovingly.What does that tell you? Either he's a personal friend or Heath Campbell has at least a ten year criminal history. He must be father of the year

I dunno, Dom. Sounds to me like you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There are guys in the NFL right now who are worse criminals, worse "fathers", worse people than Heath Campbell. And it's been documented.

Yet they are hero worshipped by millions of kids because they can catch a football and run real fast.

My guess is the Campbells will get an ACLU lawyer and wind up with a large settlement out of this.

Fallen guardian angels: How DYFS failed a child

Hearing descends to partisan bickering as legislators place blame

Sunday, January 19, 2003 BY MARY JO PATTERSON

STAR-LEDGER STAFF

Gov. James E. McGreevey was boiling mad. Not screaming mad, but steaming. The governor is an emotional man, but aides had never seen him react like this.

It was Monday, Jan. 6. A little boy, Faheem Williams, had been found dead in a Newark basement, and his brothers found abandoned and left to live like rats in the bilge of a ship. For much of their lives, the three had been the responsibility of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, the state's child protection agency.

McGreevey had ordered an accounting of the bungled case, and now, as each new detail - many of them violations of accepted practice - was disgorged, he clenched his jaw tighter and tighter. Early in 2002, the governor learned, a DYFS worker with a rating of "unsatisfactory" had blatantly violated procedure by disregarding an allegation that the Williams children were being burned and beaten, and deciding to close their case.

The actual closing was documented and prepared by an ill-equipped DYFS trainee, also contrary to the rules.

These moves left the three boys in the care of a guardian with a criminal record and DYFS history of child abuse, another fundamental misstep. The boys dropped off the radar.

And then on Jan. 4, after two of the boys were rescued from a locked basement and the older of them disclosed his twin was missing, there was no search of the premises.

On Jan. 5, when police returned and discovered Faheem's remains hidden in the very same basement, DYFS workers did not report the shocking discovery "up the line" to Gwendolyn Harris, the state's Human Services commissioner. That also was contrary to official procedure.

As the governor waited, the depressing information trickled out bit by bit. At one point, eight frantic DYFS managers were on a single conference call, trying to figure out answers. By late morning, enough mistakes were recounted to McGreevey to suggest that case practice and management at DYFS' District Office II in Newark had strayed far from its mission of keeping children safe.

Last Friday, after two full weeks of internal investigation, Harris found herself still unable to answer many of the questions.

Three DYFS offices in Newark had received an emergency transfusion of cells phones, cars, new leadership and new rules by last week. But, Harris said, an explanation for the bad judgment displayed by "some people" in Newark's DYFS offices was missing.

"There are some folks in Newark who believe their job is worse, more difficult, more complicated than anybody else's in the state because they're in Newark," Harris said. "For some people, it becomes a raison d'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Their also may not have been. What's your point? That the state can arbitrarily take somebody's children based on an assumption?

My point is that WE DON'T KNOW. We don't know because they haven't told us. Maybe there is a good reason for taking the kids and maybe there isn't.

That doesn't bother you?

That we don't know where the kids are? Not particularly. It would bother me if they don't have proper procedures in place, but I don't know that. Neither do you.

Correct. And I base my determination on the public information I am privvy to.

You are privvy to nothing so stop making moronic leaps to judgment.

I dunno, Dom. Sounds to me like you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

A mountain out of a molehill? I think the welfare of children is pretty important. You have decided that no kids should be taken from their parents. Apparently you want a public hearing so you can decide. I don't think that **** should necessarily be public. If you have a problem with the way the system is run you make a better system, you don't sit there and make wild unwarranted accusations.

There are guys in the NFL right now who are worse criminals, worse "fathers", worse people than Heath Campbell. And it's been documented.

Yet they are hero worshipped by millions of kids because they can catch a football and run real fast.

You have no idea how bad of a father Heath Campbell is. Neither do I. A mountain out of a molehill? There are a million horrific things that may have happened to the kids at the hands of their parents. I won't speculate because that is apparently your MO. I don't concede that anybody is a better or worse father because I have no evidence. Neither do you. I don't see how it is relevant that an NFL player may be a worse criminal or father. We have no documentation of it because we have no documentation on Heath Campbell.

My guess is the Campbells will get an ACLU lawyer and wind up with a large settlement out of this.

Gues away. You may be right. You also may be tragically wrong. There is no information one way or the other. In fact, you have decided that they took the kids for the single reason that the State has denied.

I edited out your article because you posted the link already and it's not really relevant. I never denied they make horrible mistakes, I just said we don't know about this case. You have apparently decided that the system doesn't work, so they must be screwing these kids over. The article spends a ton of time complaining about inaction on the part of DYFS, now they act and you complain.

We can do this all day. Why don't you just admit neither of us knows anything about this particular case and we can argue when the facts come out? My responses are in bold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We can do this all day. Why don't you just admit neither of us knows anything about this particular case and we can argue when the facts come out? My responses are in bold.

Fair enough. I just hope that the reasons why the children were taken into state custody are justified, and whatever charges the parents get hit with, they stick.

Because if they don't, then this will just mobilize thousands of white-supremacists with a legitimate beef, and the last thing America needs right now is any validation of their twisted and warped worldview.

Peace.

As for NFL players who are scumbags, my point was/is that we engage in selective outrage. I believe in right and wrong across the board. I don't cherry pick based on bias, political correctness, or convenience.

Personally I think social dysfunction could be virtually wiped out if we spay any woman who has a second child while on welfare. Absentee fathers should be given a DNA test, and if they are the father of the child, they should be neutered.

Edited by Jet Moses
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. I just hope that the reasons why the children were taken into state custody are justified, and whatever charges the parents get hit with, they stick.

Finally, we agree.

Because if they don't, then this will just mobilize thousands of white-supremacists with a legitimate beef, and the last thing America needs right now is any validation of their twisted and warped worldview.

This isn't the reason I'm worried about it, but it's a good one.

Peace.

As for NFL players who are scumbags, my point was/is that we engage in selective outrage. I believe in right and wrong across the board. I don't cherry pick based on bias, political correctness, or convenience.

I'm outraged at them too. I live my live in such a perpetual state of anger that people think I don't care if I'm not spraying one of the profanity laced tirades I erupt with about eight times a day.

Personally I think social dysfunction could be virtually wiped out if we spay any woman who has a second child while on welfare. Absentee fathers should be given a DNA test, and if they are the father of the child, they should be neutered.

I think they tried this with depo-provera(sp?) in the 80s/90s. It's a type of chemical birth control. I don't think the court upheld it and they are too worried about health concerns to use it. They insist that it be reversible, so actual spaying and neutering isn't likely, Mr. Barker.

Now who is going to keep up with this case so that we can fight about it when we actually know the facts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now who is going to keep up with this case so that we can fight about it when we actually know the facts?

:lol:

I think they tried this with depo-provera(sp?) in the 80s/90s. It's a type of chemical birth control. I don't think the court upheld it and they are too worried about health concerns to use it. They insist that it be reversible, so actual spaying and neutering isn't likely, Mr. Barker.

If I had to venture a guess, mister and missus Campbell are welfare recipients. Which means if she was spayed after "aryan nation" was born, their never would have been a birthday cake controversy for young Adolph.

This could have been headed off at the pass. Regardless, if they are on welfare she should be spayed now and he should be neutered. They served notice on society that they are unfit to bring any more children into this world.

Edited by Jet Moses
Link to post
Share on other sites
You truly think it's as simple as that? That the state agency in charge of protecting children simply decided, "The parents are ****s so let's take the kids"?

There are a lot of white supremeacists with swastikas around the home but they keep their children. Surely there is something else going on here.

I would hope that there is indeed more to the story. The parents are ***holes but the state better have some pretty good reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that to take the children away from the parents because of unpopular political beliefs would be tyranny.

However, among the possible reasons the state might want to take their kids away are the following:

A) People with Fascist sympathies frequently are allied with people who harbor hopes of forming a white supremacist state and have plans to stockpile arms to do so. So there might be weapons violations.

B)Fascist sympathizers are frequently allied with biker gangs, which are involved in the drug trade. Indeed, much of the leadership of the white supremacist movement comes from prison gangs.

I am not saying this couple has any of these alliances, that would be guilt by association. But if there are drugs, illegal guns or both in that household, then I would expect the child protection people to get busy. And of course, there are any of a number of other reasons unrelated to their white supremacist associations which could be the cause as well. We simply don't know.

Edited by kelticwizard
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would agree that to take the children away from the parents because of unpopular political beliefs would be tyranny.

However, among the possible reasons the state might want to take their kids away are the following:

A) People with Fascist sympathies frequently are allied with people who harbor hopes of forming a white supremacist state and have plans to stockpile arms to do so. So there might be weapons violations.

B)Fascist sympathizers are frequently allied with biker gangs, which are involved in the drug trade. Indeed, much of the leadership of the white supremacist movement comes from prison gangs.

I am not saying this couple has any of these alliances, that would be guilt by association. But if there are drugs, illegal guns or both in that household, then I would expect the child protection people to get busy. And of course, there are any of a number of other reasons unrelated to their white supremacist associations which could be the cause as well. We simply don't know.

:face:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that is not much of a response.

Why do you assume that because you cannot find an article giving the specific reasons the children were removed, that they were removed because of their parents' political beliefs?

Nobody is claiming that having unpopular political beliefs makes parents necessarily unfit.

However, you seem to feel that having unpopular beliefs rules out the parents being unfit for any reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...