Wonkette libs poke fun at grieving mother

By Keith Johnson

We all enjoy good satire from time to time—even when the ribbing is done at our expense.  God knows I’ve dished out my fair share. Very rarely do we find extreme examples, where satirists cross the line into territory that is beyond bad taste.  However, this weekend, I found an article on the self-described ‘D.C. gossip’ website, Wonkette, that did just that.

A featured article entitled, “BREAKING TEABAGGER NEWS: Govmint Stoled Newborn Baby makes a mockery out of the suffering of a young couple, whose child was recently abducted by child services in the state of New Hampshire.  

The author, who goes by the name of Jack Stuef, immediately treads beyond the parameters of artistic license and begins engaging in a variety of cruel defamations. 

“Just when Teabagger parents thought they could have as many poor welfare children as they wanted, the big scary government child services came in and decided it could TAKE AWAY THEIR CHILDREN just because they are members of a Teabagger group that wants to protect the Constitution (with guns).”

If you are not familiar with the case he is referring to, perhaps a little background information is in order.

Last Thursday, John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin welcomed their newborn daughter into the world at the Concord Hospital in New Hampshire.  Shortly after Stephanie gave birth, the hospital staff told the parents that the infant needed to be checked by a pediatrician.  This was an apparent rouse to get the child away from the couple.  Irish saw a variety of uniformed officers, detectives and social workers escorting the head nurse down the hall.  Sensing that something was wrong, Irish tried to intervene.  He was then forcibly held against his will, frisked, and told by police that they were taking the baby.  Shortly thereafter, both parents were told to leave the hospital and demanded they not return.

According to court paperwork, the state alleges that the infant was in “imminent danger” of her parents due to “a lengthy history of domestic violence.”  Both Janvrin and Irish deny the allegations. 

In an affidavit supporting its actions, the Department of Child and Youth Services also makes mention of the father’s affiliation with Oath Keepers, which it describes as “a militia,” and his purchase of “several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and Taser.”

The information in that last paragraph is apparently what sparked Jack Stuef’s interest.  He isn’t concerned about the plight of American families who have fallen victim to Child Protective Services—and had it not been for the couple’s politics—he would have likely dismissed the case as irrelevant.  But these particular people were poor, white, owned guns and regard the United States Constitution as the law of the land.  They fit the exact profile of the kind of people Jack obviously hates.  It makes no difference to him that they are forced to deal with one of the most traumatic experiences a parent could ever be expected to live through.  In his mind, these people are TEABAGGERS, and should be given no quarter.  This line of thinking is inhumane, vicious and paints an ugly picture of the moral collapse of our society.

You don’t go to a military funeral to stage a protest carrying signs that read “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God For Dead Soldiers,” and you don’t poke fun at grieving mothers who have just lost their children, no matter how much you may disagree with their politics.  

At no time in a woman’s life is she more emotionally fragile than directly after having given birth.  This is what makes this particular case so horrific: that the local authorities would choose this time to separate a woman from her child, when the bonding is most critical.  No advance warning was given.  They simply took the child and told the parents to leave.   Upon hearing this, I literally broke down in tears, as I have countless times before after hearing of similar incidents.  In these circumstances, a decent and compassionate being turns off their bias and prejudice and feels nothing but empathy for the human suffering.  I personally cannot even comprehend how anyone could find humor from such tragedy.  Perhaps it requires having children of your own and living more than a few decades to fully appreciate what I’m talking about. 

In my attempt to try and understand what makes someone like Stuef tick, I went to his bio.  There, I found his photograph.  If that really is him, it confirms a lot of what I expected to find:  a young white kid who looks like he needs a little more sunshine than the kind he gets off his computer screen.  He has an unruly mop of hair and soft pudgy cheeks that look like they’ve been cultivated off a steady diet of Dr. Pepper and Cheetos.  Am I being exceptionally cruel? 

But I’ve said enough about Jack (or whatever his real name is).  His poor excuse for satire is what I’ve come here to discuss.  His article goes on to describe ‘Oath Keepers’ as “a militia group with a weird constitution fetish.” 

Oath Keepers is not a militia, but rather (according to its own website) a “non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.”

But even if it were a militia, listing Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of taking his child is an egregious violation of the Constitution.  Additionally, none of Irish’s weapons purchases seemed to have been made illegally.  If they had been, or if Irish had a felony conviction that precluded him from firearms ownership, it would seem likely that he would have already been in custody.  Again, listing Irish’s legal firearms ownership in the context of an affidavit to take his child would also qualify as a gross violation of our Constitution. 

Stuef also identifies the couple’s child as a “Teabagger spawn,” mocks the mother’s Facebook profile, suggests that the father has a “history of violence and firearms charges” and that both parents were “terrible parents with a long history of neglect.” 

In reality, there appears to be only one firearms charge that may have come as a result of a traffic stop—and a subsequent search of the vehicle—that discovered a firearm that belonged to Stephanie.  She is said to have a concealed carry permit, but did not have it in her possession.  Because it was John’s vehicle, he was the one charged.  It is unclear if that case has been fully resolved.  But often times, people who are unable to afford adequate representation will often feel compelled to plea out to a charge in order to avoid a lengthy trial.  

Also, it appears that the neglect accusations may have stemmed from charges made by Stephanie’s ex-husband, and that the petition for removal of parental rights have nothing to do with John and his newborn daughter.  Bitter, former spouses often come up with exaggerated, and often false, accusations during custody disputes.  But none of this speculation really matters.  Whatever the truth turns out to be should be resolved in a court of law. 

The simple fact that both Janvrin and Irish are running around free is enough to suggest that a solid case has not yet been established to support a criminal prosecution.  In the United States of America, we are presumed innocent until we are proven otherwise before a jury of our peers.  Child Protective Service courts are extra-judiciary, administrative bodies that do not extend the right of due process afforded to us (at the State level) under the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution.  Without due process, the government is forbidden from depriving any American of life, liberty or property.

Most police officers and social workers are not even aware of this fact.  That is the problem that arises when a society allows their government to ‘train’ their personnel rather than ‘educate’ them.  Dogs can be trained, but it takes an intellect to discern right from wrong.  That is why most civilian law enforcement agency hires have an intelligence quotient in the range of 80-90.  This is considered a little below “average intelligence” by most standards, and identifies people who rarely seek explanations beyond those they learn in a classroom setting.  Anyone smarter than that is likely to explore the given material in great detail and apply logic and reason before making critical decisions.  The government can’t have that.  They need obedient servants that will take orders and fit in to their uniform standards of compliance. 

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the first few Stars Wars episodes?  The Empire didn’t clone their storm troopers simply in the interests of saving a few bucks.  But don’t think I’m basing my analysis on a work of fiction.  During the course of my former career, I’ve literally screened thousands of potential job applicants.  It always disturbed me that intelligent people were turned away in just as great a number as the ones who fell way below the acceptable limit.  Meanwhile, I would watch the select few being told that they were the “best of the best” and “the ones that made the cut,” instilling a false sense of superiority that often led to a tragic end. 

What happened to Stephanie Janvrin and John Irish is a classic example of public servants who overstep their bounds, and whose textbook allegiance to unlawful bureaucracies brings untold heartache and tragedy to yet another American family.  If the police had reasonable cause to believe that Irish had committed a crime, they should have arrested him and left the child with the mother.  If both parents were held on reasonable suspicion of a crime, the police should have immediately surrendered the child over to the care of Stephanie’s family. 

There will be a hearing in the case on Thursday in Rochester Family Court, and while the ‘presumed guilty’ couple sweats out the long days heading up to their court date, the court of public opinion has already found them guilty as charged. 

We’ve seen both the left and right jump to conclusions about the assumed guilt or innocence of people they despise.  In 2008, Right wing Neo-conservative bloggers and posters were in a delirious frenzy of euphoria when a 9/11-truth advocate by the name of Gary Talis was arrested on charges of assaulting a wheel chair bound girl, with cerebral palsy, at a Laura Bush event.  Although he adamantly denied the charges and had several eyewitnesses to corroborate his story, many took the liberty to defame him and put his life in serious jeopardy. 

The New York Post ran an article entitled, “Bush Basher Smashes Disabled Teen: Cops,” that made Talis out to be an insane lunatic who shouted obscenities and then began punching the disabled girl.  More faux-conservatives like Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Fox News and several 9/11 debunking sites joined in the smear.  Bloggers and comment boards were full of slanderous content, many making threats of violence directed at Talis.  The ensuing trial found Talis “not guilty” after a conscientious Secret Service agent provided key testimony that thoroughly discredited the charges.  According to eyewitnesses, it was actually the girl’s father who assaulted Talis by punching and ramming his daughter’s wheelchair into him.  

Now the left has their own ‘claim to defame’ with this latest smear campaign.  If you haven’t read Jack Steuf’s article, I would highly recommend that you do so.  But don’t stop there.  Read on to the comments section, where you’ll find even more disgusting discourse to turn your stomach.  Take a look at some of these comments:

Kittylittr: Have the Teatards officially declared war against the US yet? Because I’m really looking forward to collecting medals for killing bunches of them with my liberal gun and liberating their sister-wife-daughters from the compounds.

Tommmcatt:  If they take away the baby who will keep an eye on the meth lab timer? If that stuff boils over it burns holes in the double-wide.

FlownOver:  Well, cool! TeaBaggerdom is now officially a defense to child abuse!
Some of y’all young’uns best be headin’ for the hills NOW! Soon as this word gets around, y’all are roadkill!

JMPEsq:  Let’s see; the parents are apparently not married, the mother at least already has three kids when she’s too young to have one, it’s unclear if the older kids have the same father or not, oh and they apparently abused and neglected the kids. Yep, this is what the teabaggers tell us is a normal all-American family.

Rambone:  Well, the good new is that they’ll probably have a couple more replacement babies on the conception-conveyor belt before I manage to hit the “submit” button on this comment.

Just for good measure, I added a comment of my own:

Revoltoftheplebs: Look at the NEW LEFT–a bunch of giggling ninnies full of frightened men and bitter women. Oh, what a departure from the antiwar, anti-fascist movement of the 60′s and 70′s. Now it’s time to use your ‘indoor voice’ and rat out your neighbors if they might have a scary flag waving on their front porch.

They’d rather get their giggling points from Jon Stewart and attend a “Rally to Restore Sanity” to mock the teabaggers. Ridicule is so much more fun than taking to the streets and voicing their outrage at bankers foreclosing on people’s homes while their executives reep million dollar bonuses. Snickering at stupid costumes teabaggers wear is so much more constructive than demanding an end to these unnecessary wars.

I suggest you visit Wonkette and leave a comment of your own, or perhaps drop Jack Stuef a line and tell him how you really feel:

Jack@Wonkette.com

Published in: on October 11, 2010 at 10:47 am  Comments (30)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/wonkette-libs-poke-fun-at-grieving-mother/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

30 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. You can bet your ass that Jack Stuef is a jew.

    • This comment must have been made by a friend of Steuf to make the right look racist.

      It would not matter if he were Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Homo, or Straight; What he wrote was hateful, and that is what matters.

      • No. Whites need to understand that the hate for them comes from jews. They need to take note of who disparages them.

      • Homo? Really? You just used the word homo?

      • You’re basically attempting to shut down a discussion at the expense of minorities, and ROTP is willing to give you a platform.

    • I could, but I’d rather bet that the Joos are out to get you is about the only thing that makes you good and hard these days.

      • You’re really letting these antisemmetic comments pass? Well, no surprise here.

  2. I am a subscriber and receive your newsletter regularly. I wanted to thank you for a voice of sanity–and common human decency–that rings out above the shrill mass of stupidity and cruelty this country produces.

    Sometimes I have compassion for these “people” whose brains are so washed, they’re dripping wet and sudsy. Not often, and not this time.

    Have so many of us forgotten that when we speak out against “teabaggers” or “libtards,” that these are our neighbors, our friends, our fellow countrymen? Common human decency is at such a nadir these days I can barely detect its eistence. And intelligence is in even rarer supply.

    But I detected in your post a vitally alive beating heart, and for that I thank you. I also detected that other rare commodity: a fully functional human brain. I thank you for that too.

    Over forty years ago, MLK warned us of our “soft heads” and our “hard hearts.” Too bad we didn’t listen then; maybe it would be easier for so many of us to listen now.

    My deepest regards go to you.

    • Reverend,

      Thank you for the kind words. I hope I we can all transcend this darkness and leave a better world for our children.

      Keith

  3. http://dailyteaparty.com/?p=1524 We have linked to your article. Thanks!

  4. The “state” took this couple’s child. That’s the issue. Without probable cause. Holy crapmont, ‘we the people’ are screwed. When “our” government acts outside the law towards ANYONE, the government has broken faith with ‘we the people’ and it’s over.
    Left or right and IF the screaming would let up a mite, common ground could be found. Having studied both sides for some years now, there is far more that binds us than that which divides us. But, the oligarchs would keep us divided and obfuscation rules our day. Hmmm, the divided would be the conquered.
    Wonkette blows. Swishy pseudo-intellectual posers that champion the ‘one party’ line and quite profitably would be my suspicion. You know, the ‘one party’ line being “the global war of terror.” So Bush is Obama and obedience to tyranny is acquiescences to political order. Jack Stuff seems a milk-fed little fop. Writes like that too.
    I had me a run in with one of the Daily Kos disciples. When I confronted the aforementioned Kos disciple about Moulitsas being CIA, oh holy hot batshit, you’d think I’d personally crapped in homer’s Cheerios.
    Oh well, not so much can be done with pseudo-intellectual posers. Nope.
    Oh and sorry Keith I forgot, very well done and said.
    peace maybe someday,
    skulz

    • Skulz,

      Thanks. I got your email. Great tribute. Kudos.

      Keith

    • Skulz, remember that whole “affidavit” thingy where the Oath Keepers association was referenced? That affidavit — which detailed prior acts showing probable cause to believe that this child was in danger — was submitted to a judge for a determination as to whether there was probable cause to remove the child into the temporary custody of CPS. So, since the absence of probable cause seems (as best one can tell) the support for the rest of your ramblings, please have a big cup of FAIL, on me.

  5. I’m not familiar with Stars Wars movies? Do rednecks abuse their wives and children in it?

  6. Hahahaha, Zis iz good, vee vill take away all ze GOYIM babies, it is in our Talmud, if you have a problem with zis, then you are antiSemitic.

  7. You accuse Jack Stuef of taking sides without knowing the facts, but you did the exact same thing. Child services documents and hearings are closed to the public for the protection of the children. You know no more than Mr. Stuef does about what is going on with that family. It’s generally very difficult to take a child away from its parents, and the state rarely, if ever, does so without good cause. How many kids dies in their parents’ custody? Are mistakes made? Probably. Which means none of us know the facts.

    You don’t know if those parents are good parents anymore than Mr. Stuef knows whether they’re bad parents. You’re guilty of exactly what you accused him of.

  8. Oh my, not freedom of speech! Nooooooo!!!!

  9. Yes! The lucrative federal baby stealing racket must be stopped! Keep gubbmint outta my life.. unless i need a road to drive on… or.. police protection or.. hospitals or..

  10. You said: “But even if it were a militia, listing Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of taking his child is an egregious violation of the Constitution.”

    Which part of the constitution does this violate? I’m not aware of anything in the constitution that says that an association cannot be put into an affidavit.

    • Onceler,

      It’s a violation of the First amendment of the United States Constitution, as upheld in U.S. Supreme Court case of Bradenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444.

      Let me know what else I can help you with.

      Keith

      • “Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.”

        still not the same thing as mentioning something in an affidavit, you dumbass.

      • Tim,

        Wow, I’m suprised anyone of the wingnuts from Wonkette would have the guts to come over here and defend the undefendable, especially in light of the new information that suggests CPS totally screwed up their case by mixing up John Irish’s criminal history with another John Irish.

        Listen, idiot…your whole crew defamed a family and cheered the removal of an infant from her mother. You’re proud of that? The child has since been returned and public officials who may have botched this whole affair could find themselves in hot water.

        Stick to fry cooking and leave matters beyond your scope of expertise to those of us who know what they’re talking about.

        Yours Truly,

        Keith

  11. Keith, your citation to Bra(n)denburg v. Ohio is laudable for the attempt, but that case doesn’t really support your argument.

    Brandeburg was about a KKK member punished by the state of Ohio merely for his inflammatory rhetorir under laws known as “syndicalism statutes.” I realize that there are some overlapping facts (membership in a hate group vs. membership in a possibly-controversial maybe-militia) here making you think that Mr. Irish’s case has something to do with Brandenburg, but that’s where you go off track.

    Brandenburg held that the government cannot punish someone merely for inflammatory speech (or, if you’d like to extrapolate, for associating with a hate group). But in Mr. Irish’s case, they are not punishing him for his association or for his speech. They are including, as one factor towards probable cause, his membership in a militia-type group that lists some fairly out there positions on its website (come on, citing just their non-controversial front page is disingenuous and you know it). Just because they don’t call themselves a militia doesn’t make it so.

    Taking a child away from her parents requires probable cause, which some judge in New Hampshire signed off on here. It sounds like the affidavit cited not only some domestic abuse and firearms charges, but the membership in what may or may not be a militia. In light of what sounds like a history of violent behavior, I think his membership in that group becomes relevant to establish Mr. Irish’s violent tendencies. Just like an affidavit in support of taking someone’s driver’s license away might cite not only any DUI’s or public drunkenness but other legal behavior (a bevmo discount liquor membership?) that, in light of certain behaviors, becomes relevant.

    At any rate, you are misapplying Brandenburg. No government made a law punishing Mr. Irish and his wife for their militia membership – and no government can or will with Brandenburg on the books. (As an aside, the government can still punish groups/speech that may incite imminent lawless activity, but that is tangential here). CPS made a determination that the totality of this family’s circumstances gave them probable cause to take the child away pending a hearing and a judge signed off on that warrant.

    It is not a violation of the First Amendment to simply list the membership since the government is not infringing on this man’s right to associate with whomever he wants or say whatever he wants. It is a factor in the government’s decision that the home is not safe for the child. None of the Supreme Court’s first amendment jurisprudence supports your argument, which is why the_onceler called you out (albeit in an inarticulate manner).

    Let me know what else I can help you with.

    • No, I am not misapplying Brandenburg. Just because you say I am does not make it so. Just because you call yourself a Constitutional scholar does not make it so. Just because you call Oath Keepers a militia does not make it so.

      The whole crux behind Oath Keepers is transparent enough. They simply refuse to obey un-Constitutional orders.
      This is taken from their website:

      What We Are Not
      We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
      Constitution defined and instituted.

      We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

      We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition.

      We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.

      We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.

      We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written.

      We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any
      reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.

      We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic free from fear and hatred. We hate only tyranny.

      We are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its legal and rightful place, intact, as the ultimate Law of the Land.

      Let me ask you, CS, what un-Constiitutional orders would you like Oath Keepers to obey? Is there some secret motive or operation that Oath Keepers is involved with that we don’t know about–but you do? If so, please enlighten us.

      Freedom of association is protected under the First Amemndment. Brandenburg is an excellent case to cite as it demonstrates how the court ruled against the state acting to punish someone for the abstract advocacy of violence.

      Irish has done no such thing, and his associaition with a group that vocally denounces violence makes the case against him pale in comparison to Brandenburg.

      I’d say “nice try,” but it really wasn’t, and as far as extending the offer to “help” me? I’ll pass. Peddle that tripe to idiots who want to believe that the founders intended the first amendment to protect pornographers and morning drive disc jockeys and that the second amendment was intended to assure that the government would have guns to ptotect itself from the people they govern.

      By the way, are you implying that a militia is something that the American people should fear? Perhaps a Constitutional scholar like yourself needs to educate himself on the second amendment. If you are a scholar, you’d know that a well “regulated” militia does not mean “regulated” in the way that word is used today. “Regulated,” at the time of the Constitution was written was defined as “trained.” So–”well regulated” means “well trained.”

      What’s next, CS (or more appropriately BS)? Spelling errors? Punctuation? Better get busy searching that internet for new found knowledge you’re gonna throw at me.

      By the way, I know you hadn’t even heard of Brandenburg v. Ohio until I brought it to your attention.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      Keith

      • Nothing in Brandenburg says that an affidavit cannot list affiliations. Perhaps that cannot be used in a criminal conviction, but there is nothing unconstitutional in an affidavit listing associations.

        What is your citation for the 18th century definition of “regulated”? Thanks.

      • In the interests of time, I suggest you google “well regulated” and “well trained” together and you will find a number of sources to explain this.

        Let me be clear–I for one believe the world would have been better off had guns never been invented. I abhor violence, find no glamour or excitement in gun culture and hate to hear when they’ve been used. However, in a world where guns exist, it is naive to think that those who seek power will not use them to control those who do not have them. An armed citizenry makes subjugation by tyrants that much more difficult.

        Keith

      • Kieth, thanks for fighting the good fight. The sea of snark can’t be easy to deal with, but you keep your cool even in the face of the degenerate yuppie hoards. Keep it up.

  12. Wonkette or should that be wanker? Snoty nosed individuals should keep their opinions to themselves. Idiot, grow up, get a life or better still sit on the train tracks till you ready for McDonalds, Wanker.

  13. “In the United States of America, we are presumed innocent until we are proven otherwise before a jury of our peers.”

    I do believe that Baby Busch signed in the Noahyde Laws of the Chabad Lubavitch, in March of 1991 to celebrate the life of Rabbi Schneerson, one of the most hating of all Chabad rabbis. The Noahides are the “true laws” of the Jews as set out in the Babylonian Talmud, the foundation of Judaism.

    Anatomy of a One World Religion

    http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/anatomy_of_a_one_world_religion_noahide_laws.htm

    Under these laws, you are guilty until proven innocent. It was also about this time that our police and military began to meld and violence become much more commonplace in arrests etc. The thing is, Americans have not been advised of these changes in their law systems. It is the same up here in Canada so don’t feel too bad.

    So sadly, another aspect of our once proud nations has been swept under the rug.

    As for the scum that write such things about this young couple, they are to be pitied for they are the product of the Zionification of the West. They have lost their compassion and humanity and take us all closer to being no more than cogs in the machine.

    The young couple need public support, and lots of it.

  14. [...] following excerpts are the new information found in a well written article by By Keith Johnson. I have cherry picked what I have found most interesting.  The article starts [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 533 other followers

%d bloggers like this: