| | The article said there was a list of allegations, some disturbing. It wouldn't list them in order to protect the family, but it also has the convenient side-effect of making this connection seem to be the primary justification as well as making it impossible to verify anything about it.
The story certainly sounds bad, but the missing information is crucial. The family seems to be accused of actual child abuse, and who knows what else. Whatever reference to Oath Keepers seems incidental, and is being used to make it seem like this is happening for ideological reasons, instead of for straightforward abuse.
We don't know what the facts are. We don't know what the list of accusations are. We don't know in what context the connection to Oath Breakers was described. Far from being an informative article, it simply creates a self-serving impression that the government took custody of the child purely based on an association. The few facts presented refute that impression. Whether the family is actually guilty of any of the allegations is another story, but it seems at least that the actual reasons for taking custody of the baby are more numerous and serious than this article suggests.
|
|
