The Mental Militia Forums

Partner Sites => Oath-Keepers => Topic started by: Mr. Bill on September 11, 2015, 04:08:24 pm

Title: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Mr. Bill 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 (http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/oath-keepers-offer-of-protection-for-embattled-clerk-kim-davis/)

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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Klapton Isgod 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: colby556 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...
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Mr. Bill 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Mr. Bill 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: colby556 on September 11, 2015, 08:39:40 pm
Usually when I refuse to do my job, I'm just fired. Not sent to "jail."
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: StillaGhost 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Mr. Bill 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?
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: colby556 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

Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: DiabloLoco on September 12, 2015, 01:09:38 am
Mike drop.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: MamaLiberty 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Mr. Bill 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: MamaLiberty 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: StillaGhost 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Mr. Bill 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 (http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/oath-keepers-joins-coalition-supporting-hundreds-of-protests-against-illegal-immigration-on-july-18-19-members-encouraged-to-participate-2/), 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.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: StillaGhost on September 14, 2015, 07:37:48 am
Seems Kim's law team has declined any involvement with OathKeepers. See the update.

That's convenient.



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 (http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/oath-keepers-joins-coalition-supporting-hundreds-of-protests-against-illegal-immigration-on-july-18-19-members-encouraged-to-participate-2/), 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.

 
 
  So now you're going to compare apples to oranges? Are we now going to relive a long ago arguement as regards the border?
 
  Which of course will turn into a debacle since those of us who have actually lived along the border know the realities of the situation.
 
   Let me ask you a question  , are *you* a member of the Oathkeepers? Have *you* actually done anything of note about any of these issues the group has gotten involved with? Or is it yet another case of someone who refuses to participate wanting to set policy for an entire group who *actually* is doing something?
 
   And why wouldn't the Oathkeepers aim for some exposure? How would the message that we stand against unconstitutional orders get out without said exposure.
 
  And since we're now getting it from BOTH sides  then eventually a good many members will just say " screw it" , would you rather have that?
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Mr. Bill on September 14, 2015, 07:29:35 pm
Why do I matter?  No, I'm not a member of Oath Keepers.  I'm not a member of zillions of groups that I'd like to see change their ways.

When Stewart founded Oath Keepers, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  The whole point was to encourage the government's soldiers and enforcers to honor the Constitution.  I feel the organization has drifted from this original purpose.  That's a common problem with many organizations.

I'm not quite clear on what Oath Keepers' current purpose is.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: jamie on September 24, 2015, 02:05:05 pm
Why do I matter?  No, I'm not a member of Oath Keepers.  I'm not a member of zillions of groups that I'd like to see change their ways.

When Stewart founded Oath Keepers, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  The whole point was to encourage the government's soldiers and enforcers to honor the Constitution.  I feel the organization has drifted from this original purpose.  That's a common problem with many organizations.

I'm not quite clear on what Oath Keepers' current purpose is.

This might help you to understand what the purpose is and has always been.

Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K is under attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=305&v=p5qQjUpWgMo


Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K offered to defend Kim Davis.  It had nothing, zero, to do with publicity as allies for her religious cause.    O-K took no side on gay marriage or her religious beliefs.  O-K offered to help because her due process rights were violated by a politically motivated judge.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGlf22STdw

This is well within the charter and purpose of O-K and doesn't represent a drift at all.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Chase on September 25, 2015, 10:12:23 am
Why do I matter?  No, I'm not a member of Oath Keepers.  I'm not a member of zillions of groups that I'd like to see change their ways.

When Stewart founded Oath Keepers, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  The whole point was to encourage the government's soldiers and enforcers to honor the Constitution.  I feel the organization has drifted from this original purpose.  That's a common problem with many organizations.

I'm not quite clear on what Oath Keepers' current purpose is.

This might help you to understand what the purpose is and has always been.

Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K is under attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=305&v=p5qQjUpWgMo


Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K offered to defend Kim Davis.  It had nothing, zero, to do with publicity as allies for her religious cause.    O-K took no side on gay marriage or her religious beliefs.  O-K offered to help because her due process rights were violated by a politically motivated judge.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGlf22STdw

This is well within the charter and purpose of O-K and doesn't represent a drift at all.

Davis's due process rights were in no way violated, in fact Davis violated the due process rights of others.

People are jailed for contempt of court all the time and without a peep from O-K
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: jamie on September 25, 2015, 04:55:26 pm
Why do I matter?  No, I'm not a member of Oath Keepers.  I'm not a member of zillions of groups that I'd like to see change their ways.

When Stewart founded Oath Keepers, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  The whole point was to encourage the government's soldiers and enforcers to honor the Constitution.  I feel the organization has drifted from this original purpose.  That's a common problem with many organizations.

I'm not quite clear on what Oath Keepers' current purpose is.

This might help you to understand what the purpose is and has always been.

Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K is under attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=305&v=p5qQjUpWgMo


Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K offered to defend Kim Davis.  It had nothing, zero, to do with publicity as allies for her religious cause.    O-K took no side on gay marriage or her religious beliefs.  O-K offered to help because her due process rights were violated by a politically motivated judge.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGlf22STdw

This is well within the charter and purpose of O-K and doesn't represent a drift at all.

Davis's due process rights were in no way violated, in fact Davis violated the due process rights of others.

People are jailed for contempt of court all the time and without a peep from O-K

a. The judge immediately went to the jail option

b. The judge has a history of imposing his  political ideological personal opinion.

c.  did you watch the video?  Either one of them?

d.  due process of law definition. The principle that an individual cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards.

e. So you are saying that Kim Davis had someone arrested and jailed for contempt?  Otherwise how could she have violated due process of law?
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: WWalker on October 08, 2015, 05:46:17 pm
WOW......things have changed......4 years ago when Daniel New's (anti-gay) views were brought to the the attention of this Oath Keepers forum, everybody was absoultly enraged by his bigotry. 

Now, bigoted religious fanatics ((such as Daniel New) but) in government employ, are to be defended and protected????????????
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: da gooch on October 21, 2015, 01:51:47 pm
Sorry to take so long to respond ... work ... life ... et cetera.

WOW......things have changed......4 years ago when Daniel New's (anti-gay) views were brought to the the attention of this Oath Keepers forum, everybody was absoultly enraged by his bigotry. 

Now, bigoted religious fanatics ((such as Daniel New) but) in government employ, are to be defended and protected????????????
 :popcorn:

NO. Him and his views are not what is being defended. His and Our Rights are what is being protected/defended.
Even lowlife bigot scum suckers have rights and if we (all of us) do not protect them there won't be any protection for ourselves and our rights.
See Pastor Mueiller's (sp?) statement ... (paraphrased) When they came for the communists ... ~ snip ~ but when they came for me there was no one left to help me.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: Klapton Isgod on November 04, 2015, 08:31:44 pm
Miranda was a rapist.  As in, guilty - he did that shit.  He still had rights that the government shat on.  Now everyone knows the rapist's name.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: da gooch on March 07, 2016, 12:11:38 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.

I just got to reading this ML.
Do you still want something "wiped off the forum"?

It is just a guess but would it be all of the "F-bombs" that colby556 had posted back in September?

Just let me know and I'll get on it.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: MamaLiberty on March 07, 2016, 06:05:45 am
I just got to reading this ML.
Do you still want something "wiped off the forum"?

It is just a guess but would it be all of the "F-bombs" that colby556 had posted back in September?

Just let me know and I'll get on it.

I don't even remember what it was all about. If it didn't bother anyone else, no problem. :) I just don't feel free to do things here that I would do in other areas. Carry on, my friend.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: da gooch on March 07, 2016, 09:26:37 am
I just got to reading this ML.
Do you still want something "wiped off the forum"?

It is just a guess but would it be all of the "F-bombs" that colby556 had posted back in September?

Just let me know and I'll get on it.

I don't even remember what it was all about. If it didn't bother anyone else, no problem. :) I just don't feel free to do things here that I would do in other areas. Carry on, my friend.

At the first reading I considered an editorial comment about the gratuitous use of words meant only to "shock" rather than convey opinion or ideas but I decided to not as it would appear as if TMM does actually "Edit" the posts of our members and I want to avoid even the image of a "Big Brother" response to all especially people with limited vocabularies and poor emotional control.

Then I read your post and decided to enquire.

Stay safe
Title: Re: Oath Keepers offers to defend oath-breaker Kim Davis
Post by: MamaLiberty on March 07, 2016, 09:40:59 am
it would appear as if TMM does actually "Edit" the posts of our members

No editing by mods. The post either is left alone, the person posting it is asked to edit it, or the whole thing is deleted for violation of the TOC. Life is too complicated already to be micromanaging posts at TMM, but occasionally things must be addressed to remain on course here. Has nothing to do with being "big brother." Or sister... LOL  The OathKeeper's area at TMM is somewhat unique, and has its own moderators. Therefore, I was likely simply voicing a personal opinion. But whatever... that was long ago. :)