This is beyond outrageous - will BOLT members be targeted next?

OFF THE WIRE
Domestic problems is one thing, but using an association with an organization that has a right to exist is NOT justification for the government to kidnap a kid. Thus far, I have been unable to figure out why it was believed that the mother was unfit and why the government felt justified in taking the newborn away right from the hospital by a nurse under false pretenses.

I have met the founder of Oath Keepers, Stuart Rhodes and find his beliefs to be consistent with BOLT's as far as being a person who believes in exercising your rights. I looked at the Wikipedia and found it to be consistent with how I heard him describe himself when I met him several weeks ago:

The Oath Keepers were founded on March 2009 by Stewart Rhodes in Lexington, Massachusetts, and incorporated in Las Vegas, Nevada as a Non-Profit Corporation.[3][4] Rhodes is a Yale Law School graduate, a former US Army paratrooper, and a former staffer of Congressman Ron Paul.[5] The Oath Keepers as a group have grown to include chapters in many states across America.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

He enlists vets and police officers who have taken an oath to serve and protect the constitution and has these rules:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. 2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/

In my view, it's only a matter of time before BOLT will be categorized as an outlaw "gang" and put on some anti-terrorist list. After all, don't we believe in the right to bear arms? How many of us are gun owners? How many of us exercise our 2A?
An excerpt from Stuart's website:

This use of a father’s political association and his gun ownership is also important to many other Americans who don’t even associate with Oath Keepers because what happens in this case can impact the free speech and association rights of all of us, across the nation, of whatever political or social orientation. And that is why we must stand firm, now.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/11/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/

So basically the issue isn't "Are they unfit parents." The issue is, "how dare the government use an association like Oath Keepers and gun ownership as an added reason to remove a child." Like Stuart said:
Let’s flip the political paradigm: Imagine the same thing being done in a case involving members of PETA, Earth First, or the Anti-War Committee (AWC) which recently had their homes and offices raided by the FBI. Would it be acceptable for Child Protective Services to list those affiliations when investigating potential child abuse or neglect, or would that be both irrelevant, and prejudicial? And would it not also chill free speech, making people afraid to join those groups?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd6FSmFS1VE&feature=youtu.be&a

TigerLily
Southwest Ad Manager/Correspondent
QuickThrottle Magazine
www.quickthrottle.com
702-417-6260