It would be nice if a law suit were possible. But when I was researching this subject, I couldn't uncover one successful suit against a state CPS (If we ignore gripes by employees and contractors. I mean an action by a parent against CPS for wrongly taking the parent's kid). CPS (or more specifically, a particular state CPS agency) can not be legally accused of having insufficient justification for taking a kid. I'll try to explain.

In criminal law, in order for the state to remove a defendant's freedom, the state must show that she or he broke a law, something defined by statute. The statute will have conditions which must be met For example, in order for the state to convict someone for trespassing, the perpetrator must have knowingly been on the property, and he/she must have disobeyed a sign, barrier (like a fence), or a personally-communicated no-trespassing order from the property owner or his/her agent. The law has a definition, and someone can look it up for their jurisdiction.

In family court law, in a CPS action, legally, the state isn't accusing the kid or his parents of wrongdoing. The state is claiming that the kid is "at risk" of something happening to the kid, and, legally, although the kid may go to kiddy-jail, the action is not about the kid's freedom. The action is legally for the kid's benefit. The Guardian ad Litem, one of the attorneys working to lock-up the kid, is legally the kid's attorney. --- I'm getting too far from my point.

There is no pre-defined list of behaviors that merit taking a kid away from his/her family. There is no clear definition of "neglect" or "abuse" in respect to a kid-removing action. Many states have a criminal statute of child abuse, but that's something different. A parent doesn't need to be charged with anything to lose his or her baby.

Incorrect. (And let's assume your details are all accurate.) CPSs of any state don't have a bit of care about if there is "a danger" for the kid or not. That's just propaganda for public consumption. It's simply about money.

However, there are certain groups of people who are immune from getting their kids snatched. These are groups that may cause repercussions to their racket: Lawyers; Judges; Police; Other members of the legal system; CPS employees and contractors, including foster contractors; Famous people; Religious leaders of some decent rank; Noted civil rights people; American Indians (this is a special statutory group); People with political connections; and Rich people.

Your person "who used to work for them" was, I'm guessing, a foster contractor. This places him/her in an immune category, but certainly not a safe one considering statistically a kid is many times more likely to get hurt of killed in foster custody as opposed to the custody of the natural parents.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Sure, kids in foster custody are on Medicaid, and that means that medical care is more or less paid for if someone seeks it. But what is your point?

"Munchausen by proxy" is a favorite of child protective service (CPS) workers. It's typically used by the state as a high-flown word to make their kidnapping sound legitimate.

As you pointed out, it usually doesn't withstand logic.

Simply put, the state doesn't need a crime nor any act of a parent to justify taking a kid. The kid simply needs to be "at risk" in the opinion of a government worker. After the kid is placed in state custody, the onus is on the family to prove they are not unfit, and this is impossible.

This case is an obvious abuse of state power, but, unfortunately, it is hardly the only one. Many thousands of kids are taken for even less of a pretext.

I won't comment directly on this case now. However, having had my own son taken by the state (ostensibly because his mother was taking prescription methadone while pregnant) at the hospital in which he was born, I can say that the system, which is similar in all states because of federally imposed funding arrangements, is based on greed for money. It has nothing to do with the "best interest of the child" etc. And there will never be much improvement until the child (so-called) welfare funding (the Adoption and Safe Families Act) stops promoting state kidnapping, and the family courts become open to public view. They are "confidential", that is, closed to public inspection and criticism.

After years of fighting our case, including an appeal, we lost. There is no winning these cases for the average person. Kids simply do not get returned to their families as the state claims. The exceptions are kids from influential families, kids from other government workers, kids from lawyers, and kids who somehow get publicity. That may be the saving factor in the case described above.

What did Snowden do to "rekindle" the cold war?

Snowden fled the US because the government here in the US would have put him in a cage (or maybe worse) had he stayed. There is no evidence he is working with Russia. He ended up there because the US revoked his passport while he was at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport. He didn't have any choice but to stay, and afterwards, upon Snowden's request for asylum, Russia took its time deciding to give it to him.

He released all the documents to a British news agency, The Guardian (and American news agencies as well), before he flew from Hong Kong.

The recent acrimony between the US and Russia came about from the US government's opportunistic alliance with the neo-Nazi installed government in the Ukraine, which opposes anything Russian, including the Russian people inside the Ukraine.

Search: Colbert Snowden

Weed out statements by Colbert himself. Currently, the first page results are all from different authors. Is there even one who sees Colbert's comments about Snowden as somehow pro-Snowden? If I'm missing some hidden bunch of people, enlighten me.

My compliments for the catch. With internet access, it seems a spell checker could alert the writer to unusual adverb-verb combinations.
Interestingly, although the two words have different meanings, in some combinations, they are almost interchangeable.“Fluctuates widely” or “fluctuates wildly” In some situations, doing something in a "wide" manner is similar to doing it in a "wild" manner.

Sure, Obama wasn't deserving of the Peace Prize. (Incidentally, his *nomination* came only 12 days after he took office, and The Nobel Committee *announced the award* on October 9, 2009, about 9 months after he assumed office on January 20, 2009.) But Obama's standing is irrelevant to that of Snowden.
The Nobel committee responsible for awarding the Peace prize is the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which although private, is a small group picked by the Norwegian Parliament. The people composing those eligible to nominate is a much larger group. Snowden has only been nominated, and the ones who nominated him are probably not on the committee.

Although I'm a Snowden supporter, I would hesitate to say he is deserving either. It's a peace prize, not a whistle-blower or a patriot prize.

Colbert, being serious, quickly made an effort to "correct" the misconception that he was racist toward Asians.
“I just want to say that I'm not a racist — I don't even see race. Not even my own,” --Colbert
""I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever,” was meant to be a satirical analog to the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation, whose creation was announced earlier this week by the team’s owner, Daniel Snyder. " --Colbert

He has made no such effort to correct the wildly held perception that he is against Snowden.

My statement was elliptical. I apologize if I didn't make it so you understood. I mean you may post a *reference* (the "something" I referred to). IOW, ideally, if you have a cite of somewhere where Colbert states he is truly a Snowden supporter, then post it.

You *do* realize my estimate of Colbert position is the prevailing one, don't you? Colbert must, as I suppose he reads about himself. And that being the case, I would suppose he would want to correct the prevailing (as you see it) misconception.

Let me get this straight. You believe one ambiguous clause about Kissinger is the hint that clarifies that Colbert's position on Snowden is sarcastic, that is, the opposite of what Colbert actually is saying. And somehow numerous tech site authors missed this obvious clue. Furthermore, you somehow believe Colbert has decided to perpetuate this misunderstanding for some reason.

The "war criminal" line is at 13:54 in this vid.

The Kissinger comment inclusion is simply sloppy mixing. Colbert is also criticizing the Nobel people - that's all. It's wishful thinking to conclude that that negates his stand on Snowden.

However, I believe Colbert doesn't even understand fully what the Snowden revelations were about. Some of his humor is so lame from a tech perspective, you must give him a rather low rating in terms of understanding.

I previously was a Colbert fan, and I fully understand his style of humor and method of message. In this case, I tried hard to find a way to extortionate Colbert, but he provides nothing. It is possible to distill the seriousness from the fake-seriousness in what Colbert says, and Colbert is seriously taking an anti-Snowden position.

Colbert also states (by joking on the square) that his opinion is for sale. "...my conscience is clear, as long as the check clears."

If you have something that indicates otherwise, you may post.