The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis  (Read 3453 times)

Mr. Bill

  • Guest
Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« on: September 11, 2015, 04:08:24 pm »

Probably the stupidest thing I've read all week.

9/9/15: Oath Keepers Offers Kim Davis Protection From Further Imprisonment by Judge

Okay, I get that imprisoning someone for contempt of court is a blunt and potentially tyrannical tool.  But this isn't a private citizen, this is a government agent who, I assume, swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and who has made it clear that she is refusing to resign specifically so that she can prevent gays from getting married, in defiance of the Supreme Court's interpretation of said Constitution.

Does Oath Keepers make a habit of offering to physically defend people threatened by contempt-of-court imprisonment?  (That's a serious question -- I don't know if they've done anything like this before.)  If not, they've sure picked a bad case to start with.
Logged

Klapton Isgod

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4170
  • Long-Haired, Over-Fed, Leaping Gnome
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2015, 05:32:48 pm »

From the linked statement:

Quote
We believe Federal District Court Judge David Bunning grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial.  This judge has assumed unto himself not just the powers of all three branches of government, but has also taken on the powers of judge, jury, and “executioner.”  What matters to us is not whether you agree with her position on gay marriage or her decision to not issue marriage licenses.  What matters is that the judge is violating the Constitution in his anger and desire to punish her for going against his will.  We are already being subjected to an unconstitutional imperial presidency, that grew exponentially under both Bush and Obama, expanding the claimed war powers of the president to swallow up our Bill of Rights and circumvent jury trial.  The result is an executive branch that claims the absurd power to declare any American an “unlawful combatant” on the say-so of the president alone.

Emphasis added.
Logged
"I got things under control, that's why people call me an extremist.  I'm autonomous.  I understand that I declare my independence every day."  Ted Nugent

"It is the conservative laissez- fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."  Murray Rothbard

colby556

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2015, 05:48:10 pm »

I'd be nice if the media focused on the issue of, how does the state have the authority to license marriage OF ANY KIND? It's yet another false choice in a LONG line of false choices. If people would just get married, and the state was not involved in any capacity, then how could the state use it to divide and conquer. Well, COLBY, then women would marry sheep and it would end in anarchy. I have no problem with individuals marrying property, or individuals. It's nobodies business. ESPECIALLY THE STATE'S BUSINESS.

Why talk about that, when we can pit christian vs this, and pit constitution vs that. Divide and conquer. I mean if we were really upset about the violations against the constitution, why start there. Seems like there is an agenda at heart, and not what it seems on the surface. Slithering into my Troll hovel. STINKY< STINKY...
Logged

Mr. Bill

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2015, 06:48:46 pm »

From the linked statement:

Quote
We believe Federal District Court Judge David Bunning grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial.  This judge has assumed unto himself not just the powers of all three branches of government, but has also taken on the powers of judge, jury, and “executioner.”  What matters to us is not whether you agree with her position on gay marriage or her decision to not issue marriage licenses.  What matters is that the judge is violating the Constitution in his anger and desire to punish her for going against his will.  ...

I noticed that, and I do get Stewart's point, but I think it's outweighed by Kim Davis grossly overstepping her bounds as one of our government overlords.
Logged

Mr. Bill

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2015, 07:36:32 pm »

There's also the weird issue of that particular County Clerk office becoming a hereditary position.  Kim's mother, Jean Bailey, was elected County Clerk around 1978, and in 1987 she hired her then-21 year old daughter Kim as deputy clerk.  When mom retired in 2014, Kim got elected clerk herself, and immediately hired her own son Nathan Davis as deputy clerk.

I don't know, maybe that whole family has a genetic predisposition to be the best available applicant for the position, but it sure looks iffy.
Logged

colby556

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2015, 08:39:40 pm »

Usually when I refuse to do my job, I'm just fired. Not sent to "jail."
Logged

StillaGhost

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2015, 09:00:35 pm »

Usually when I refuse to do my job, I'm just fired. Not sent to "jail."

 
 
  Then instead of talking about it start writing Kentucky state Legislators and lobbying for them to call a session and get rid of her for dereliction of duty.
 
   Selecting the Oathkeepers as your target will do no good , you've made it quite apparent that you hate the organisation , all it's members and everything it stands for.
 
   You complain about " divisive influences" and attempt your level best to be exactly that.
 
   I happen to agree that the State has no business regulating marriage , but screaming at the top of my lungs will have zero in the way of positive effect upon the outcome.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2015, 09:04:00 pm by StillaGhost »
Logged

Mr. Bill

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2015, 09:02:00 pm »

Usually when I refuse to do my job, I'm just fired. Not sent to "jail."

Doesn't work in this case, because she's elected, not appointed, so the only way to "fire" her is recall or impeachment (I think).

The thing is, SHE IS THE GOVERNMENT.   Well, one little piece of it.  I agree that people should be able to get married without a government license, but at present, the absence of that license means the absence of certain legal rights.  She is using her governmental power to deny that license, and those rights, to couples who don't fit into her religious views.  She is the oppressor, not the victim.

There are all sorts of analogies that apply here.  For example, suppose you live in a "shall issue" state for concealed carry permits.  (Yes, the government has no moral right to demand concealed carry permits, but at the moment it enforces that -- so, no permit, no legal concealed carry rights.)  Sheriff Fred decides that, in his county, he's going to use the "may issue" standard, and only authorize permits to people who have proven a need for them, because, I dunno, maybe he's a pacifist Buddhist or something.  The court orders him to obey the law, he refuses, and he gets hauled in for contempt of court.

Is Oath Keepers going to show up and defend him from getting sent to jail?
Logged

colby556

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2015, 11:14:25 pm »

Usually when I refuse to do my job, I'm just fired. Not sent to "jail."

 
 
  Then instead of talking about it start writing Kentucky state Legislators and lobbying for them to call a session and get rid of her for dereliction of duty.
 
   Selecting the Oathkeepers as your target will do no good , you've made it quite apparent that you hate the organisation , all it's members and everything it stands for.
 
   You complain about " divisive influences" and attempt your level best to be exactly that.
 
   I happen to agree that the State has no business regulating marriage , but screaming at the top of my lungs will have zero in the way of positive effect upon the outcome.



Why in the hell would I write my slave masters begging for them to do something. The more we vote, send letters, petition, ETC.. it only gives the government more authority over us. Really, begging a legislator is better than screaming at the top of my lungs ? I do not want to encourage the government to "DO SOMETHING" about it, when the government is unfit to exists to begin with. It's like using a shovel made of shit, to shovel a mountain made of shit. There is only two things to do, continue to let TPTB operate as they do, or unplug the creation of the "people" that is the government !

You know what the fucking government is made of ? People. You know what people are made of ? Mostly dumb ass beliefs. So when Jane Q. Public leaves her private time and becomes Government worker Jane Q. Public, how the fuck is she supposed to separate her beliefs from her powers. It is an even better question in regard to police. The answer is that the government should not exists in the first place. If I don't trust my neighbor to run my life, why the fuck should I allow a whole bunch of my neighbors to run my fucking life. People should not have any authority over other people. This is what government is. A GROUP of people that have endowed themselves with power and authority over other people. Fuck being reasonable. Fuck the greater good. Fuck a social contract. Fuck the marriage license.

She has no problem slangin them government revenue and control licensees on behalf of the state for heterosexuals, but not for homosexuals, or woman that wanna marry sheep ? Yeah, she's a real fucking hero and inspiration. As long as her beliefs are being met, she will help generate that power and money for the state. She will continue to do her part to continue to keep us as chattel and government as master. If this were twisted around, is she aiding and helping the enemy that is the state ? By willingly working there and helping the state generate money and authority over marriage, isn't she acting in a treasonous fashion ? I mean, if the government is the enemy, then everyone who willingly helps government is guilty of treason. That is if the government is the enemy. Is the government the enemy or just the people that make up the government the enemy ?

We seem to all be a really smart, clever, and strong willed bunch. We are not accomplishing anything here. It's just away to burn a little time, steam, share an idea, or a technical issue. It's all entertainment.

To MR. Bill, yeah, I understand she's elected.

I think that it is time to move on now.

Best of luck to everyone, including you SAG, you old so and so. It was fun, until I realized that nothing anyone says means anything. It's all a bunch of beliefs that don't amount to much more than that. A non stop circle. Such is life though. To whoever laughed at me about the mini inferno disc, thank you for at least giving me your recipe for those disc. The paraffin wax oil really made the difference in making them myself. Finally to mamaliberty, I am glad that you have faced your Nazi moderator tendencies and have started the slow and difficult road to recovery. FIN

Logged

DiabloLoco

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2015, 01:09:38 am »

Mike drop.
Logged

MamaLiberty

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25614
  • Non aggression, self ownership
    • The Price of Liberty
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2015, 06:21:34 am »

Mike drop.

Yeah, that. Hope one of the mods here will wipe this puke off the forum... I don't feel free to do it in this section.
Logged
I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

The desire/compulsion to control the lives and property of others is the ROOT of all evil.

Mr. Bill

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2015, 01:50:22 pm »

I think that it is time to move on now.

Ah, some good news. :mellow:

Anyway, I still don't understand why Oath Keepers decided to choose this particular person to defend, when there are gazillions of others locked up for contempt of court regularly.
Logged

MamaLiberty

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25614
  • Non aggression, self ownership
    • The Price of Liberty
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2015, 02:02:37 pm »

http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/oath-keepers-offer-of-protection-for-embattled-clerk-kim-davis/

Seems Kim's law team has declined any involvement with OathKeepers. See the update.
Logged
I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

The desire/compulsion to control the lives and property of others is the ROOT of all evil.

StillaGhost

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2015, 02:38:30 pm »

I think that it is time to move on now.

Ah, some good news. :mellow:

Anyway, I still don't understand why Oath Keepers decided to choose this particular person to defend, when there are gazillions of others locked up for contempt of court regularly.

 
  Publicity and exposure , would those other " gazillions" get it , would the word/message as regards unlawful constitutional orders get out if they were selected for defense.
Logged

Mr. Bill

  • Guest
Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2015, 10:19:45 pm »

Seems Kim's law team has declined any involvement with OathKeepers. See the update.

That's convenient.

Anyway, I still don't understand why Oath Keepers decided to choose this particular person to defend, when there are gazillions of others locked up for contempt of court regularly.

 
  Publicity and exposure , would those other " gazillions" get it , would the word/message as regards unlawful constitutional orders get out if they were selected for defense.

Yes, if they chose somebody who really deserved defense, and whose own actions were not inconsitent with Oath Keeper's stated goals (as I believe Kim Davis' actions are).

I just feel like they chose her case in order to get publicity as allies of her religious cause.  It reminds me of their decision last year to ally themselves with a bunch of anti-Mexican-immigrant groups, on the dubious (IMHO) grounds that "Obama and his minions are directly engaged in a planned, concerted, coordinated invasion of our nation".  They are turning themselves into the right-wing militia that they always claimed not to be, because they can find more supporters that way.  At least, that's how it looks to me.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up