It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

page: 17
69
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

I remember reading an article on Cracked.com about these guys. Honestly, after reading it, I'm not very surprised that they'd do something like this. The way you explained them is perfect. Hopefully nothing extreme comes from this.




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: D4RKL1GHT

They seem to me to be some sort of weird hybrid of the Patriot Guard, Westboro Baptist Church, the Minute Men, and Anarchists........????????



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: JohnFisher
Their true colors are red, white, and blue. While I may personally disagree with the oathkeepers doing this, their sentiment is a defiance to a legislative SCOTUS.


Then they're in defiance of something that didn't happen. SCOTUS didn't legislate anything. The Constitution did. Kenutcky, among other states, violated the 14th amendment, and the SCOTUS ruled that they can't do that...
TThat's how it was played off anyway. Everybody had the same right to marry. It just wasn't who they wanted to marry. People want to marry robots and children and animals and objects too. That's why marriage had to be defined. They redefined marriage on their own accord. Now everybody still has the same right to marry, same as before, and it still isn't to whomever they want. That's legislation.


Again no.. They didnt make any legislation. If they did can you show me the bill? Legislation and court precedence are not the same. Do you get how our court system works? Or the three branches? The court rules if legislation is constitutional or not they didnt MAKE anything they give guidance and ALWAYS have. That is their job.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
so, here's a question for yas....

what if a police officer, or heck the chief of police has the same belief that pat robertson has:

www.youtube.com...

and well feels that he has no place interfering with a man's authority over his wife, or his responsibility to physically discipline her when he feels the need. should the whole town just tolerate it, since the chief is only acting on his religous belief, he feels that it would be wrong to keep the husband from hitting his wife. it's his right, no it is his responsibility!!! did the legislators when they wrote laws making spousal abuse illegal defy the separation of church and state and thereby infringe on the cheif's right to act according to his conscious? should he be fired for not arresting the guy, or well shall we mess around trying to accommodate him while wives across the city are beaten?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Oath Keepers ..

Has any of those guys ever been arrested?

Like during demonstrations or protests?

Have they ever actually shot at anybody?

Or are "people" just scared of the stereotype?




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

actually I think someone was arrested at the bundy ranch, although they claim it was a gov't plant, which it could very well have been who knows.
has anyone ever been shot, I can't say for sure, don't think so...
but well, I would hate for that to happen, and I certainly would hope it didn't happen over this issue! it's not worth it.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Sounds like if they get the first order dismissed, she won't have to follow it, so she can go back to acting JUST as she was before, NOT issuing licenses and NOT allowing her deputies to do so, because the judge had no jurisdiction to expand on the original order.

You explained it better than I could have, but that was my basic understanding as well. So like I said. Legal wrangling. Lets hope the courts don't fall for it.



Its not a case of if they fall for it or not. If there was a procedural error they have to concede and refile. The motion does not appear sound in any way from reading that side of it.

Sounds reasonable, but I'm never surprised at what happens with these kinds of cases.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Sounds like if they get the first order dismissed, she won't have to follow it, so she can go back to acting JUST as she was before, NOT issuing licenses and NOT allowing her deputies to do so, because the judge had no jurisdiction to expand on the original order.

You explained it better than I could have, but that was my basic understanding as well. So like I said. Legal wrangling. Lets hope the courts don't fall for it.



Its not a case of if they fall for it or not. If there was a procedural error they have to concede and refile. The motion does not appear sound in any way from reading that side of it.

Sounds reasonable, but I'm never surprised at what happens with these kinds of cases.


True. In this case though the law and the legislators are against her. The Gov sounds like he has had enough. Thank God it isnt Greg Abott.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: 727Sky

Then she needs to seek new employment if she will not do her job. Like i'm going to decide I'm not doing something at work and expect to remain employed..this is utterly ridiculous as this hypocrite is elected, being elected and not doing your job..nice work if you can find it. I guess her 80k a year has nothing to do with her convictions..if she really had any she would leave rather than defy the SCOTUS and the constitution..she is just a bigot..plain and simple.


I agree you impeach her or remove her from her job by other legal means. No different than a flight attendant who due to her religious beliefs, refuses to serve liquor on an aircraft even if it is company policy to do so . You get rid of them (after a proper review and fact finding) but you don't lock them up ... This judge would have thrown the flight attendant into jail if she worked on his aircraft... just because he is a judge.. probably if she refused sexual favors he would have had drugs planted in her car... Yep been threads right here on ATS about that kind of behavior by some ego maniac judge.

Checks and balances are important not some judge who thinks he has a fiefdom and can over ride the laws and constitution by his personal whim. Oh my, but but he is legally appointed or elected into office we have to show our proper respect and bow to his decrees... I agree if he or she is correct and follows the laws of the land.. Otherwise legally get rid of them..

We have two major things to consider in this case. A woman who did not want her name on same sex marriage licenses which is stupid to many and yet a principle to others. I am personally on the side of stupid but our republic is supposed to protect minority views and beliefs... remove her. or make it so her name does not have to appear on same sex licenses.. but jail is also stupid and a big over reach by the court ...

The bureaucratic process is so slow that the governor or some state judge could have made a ruling that her name does not have to appear on the license until further review..problem solved... But no, this particular judge threw her in jail as a show of force without warrant and without due process.. You will do what I say "now" or go to jail.. That is what the Oath Keeper are up in Arms about..

Once upon a time there was another group who were rich and powerful until they pissed a corrupt broke King off. They were interned tortured and killed on trumped up charges because the King owed them money and could not pay. So the King confiscated their property because, 'hey they are dead now' and declared enemies of the state; problem for the king solved... Think Templar's.. Poor example but our constitution and laws of the land are supposed to have checks and balances against some overlord judge who by the wave of his hand can send someone to jail. That is something that everyone should be concerned with.. But no.... since this has religious connotations and on the surface some thought anti gay which regardless of her religion and statements it was IMO... many want to burn the B*tch... along with anyone who says the judge was wrong and is willing to stand and fight on constitutional principles to keep her out of jail !

I am more concerned people can't see this than the case itself.. But hey welcome to the ?????????? of America who just because they want something they feel they can think and say "screw the supreme law of the land and give it to me now or I will throw you in jail until you see things my way" ! Believe what I believe or suffer the consequences etc etc

Plenty of countries in this world where if you piss off the wrong cop or someone in authority they have a deep dark cell for you along with people who want to beat the living crap out of you... just because, it is their job and they have the power; no checks and balances in their laws or the PTB don't care, why, because their word is law ..

Ooops I forgot the USA can keep you from flying or even disappear you if you are declared an enemy of the state (suspicion thereof) and you will have no lawyer or day in court along with even a slight ability to fight your accusers... sorry my mistake... carry on...

Impeach her and the Judge, case and problem solved. ... or remove the requirement for her name from the license and still impeach the judge..



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
But no, this particular judge threw her in jail as a show of force without warrant and without due process.


Funny how you left out the fact she went to court - and lost! Also the reason she was jailed is she defied a court order.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: 727Sky
But no, this particular judge threw her in jail as a show of force without warrant and without due process.


Funny how you left out the fact she went to court - and lost! Also the reason she was jailed is she defied a court order.



You got it!



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide




The Right Wing militant group called The Oathkeepers, with many members who are active duty or former military and law enforcement personnel, are coming to protect and defend Kim Davis from the law itself.


A law passed by Socialist judges who do not deserve to breath the same air as us. They do not follow the Constitution, they follow what Obama wants.

Our nation was founded under GOD and his laws. The only reason the religious freedom was put in the framing was all the people who founded the country had been persecuted tyrants who were protected by the Vatican.

Catholicism and England was what they wanted freedom from not GOD or Christianity as they all were Christians fed up with the Pope.

This Once great nation will fall hard and be devastated for turning away from God. If you cant see it happening before your eyes then you need to remove the blinders.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
Our nation was founded under GOD and his laws.


Her laws actually, and exactly which "god"?


This Once great nation will fall hard and be devastated for turning away from God.


Again, exactly which "god"?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge




Our nation was founded under GOD and his laws.


Wrong.

There is this thing called the 1st amendment and the very first thing it says is:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: Hefficide




The Right Wing militant group called The Oathkeepers, with many members who are active duty or former military and law enforcement personnel, are coming to protect and defend Kim Davis from the law itself.


A law passed by Socialist judges who do not deserve to breath the same air as us. They do not follow the Constitution, they follow what Obama wants.

Our nation was founded under GOD and his laws. The only reason the religious freedom was put in the framing was all the people who founded the country had been persecuted tyrants who were protected by the Vatican.

Catholicism and England was what they wanted freedom from not GOD or Christianity as they all were Christians fed up with the Pope.

This Once great nation will fall hard and be devastated for turning away from God. If you cant see it happening before your eyes then you need to remove the blinders.


Name one forefather that was christian.

The judge who broke the tie was oppointed by Reagan. Obama put one judge in. One.

Sounds like sore loosers who have never read the constitution, declaration, federalist papers or the bill of rights. If you/they did you may understand why the 14th was made (which predates any of the judges or any living person on the planet).



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
Our nation was founded under GOD and his laws.


Her laws actually, and exactly which "god"?


This Once great nation will fall hard and be devastated for turning away from God.


Again, exactly which "god"?


The god of deists and pantheists...



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
To all of those supporting her religious freedom.

If a militant catholic started firebombing evangelical protestant churches because they had broken from the one true faith, y'all would be ok with that?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge



Our nation was founded under GOD and his laws.

No it was not. To quote Thomas Jefferson who knew more about the founding of this nation than you.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."



The only reason the religious freedom was put in the framing was all the people who founded the country had been persecuted tyrants who were protected by the Vatican.

No the reason why it was put in there is so that one religion wouldn't dominate over other religions.



This Once great nation will fall hard and be devastated for turning away from God. If you cant see it happening before your eyes then you need to remove the blinders.

You should take your own blinders off. This nation was doing great until we starting getting politicians into office that started to use their religion to determine the laws of this land instead of logic and reason. The people who can't leave their religion at home and their place of worship is what causing the fall of this nation.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
To all of those supporting her religious freedom.

If a militant catholic started firebombing evangelical protestant churches because they had broken from the one true faith, y'all would be ok with that?


Or a catholic who wont give a marriage liscence to a previously divorced couple.a



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

my ancestors fled from england, a protestant country, they weren't catholic by the way...
they weren't running away from the pope! there were many sects that weren't favored by the pope or the english protestants, including the puritans.
I'd also like to point out that although most of the settlers were christian, they settled in a land that had many more people who weren't!
And, by the way, we sacrificed our christian dominance when we started importing non-christian africans, chinese, and whoever else would do our labor for next to nothing!
the gov't cannot infringe on your right to believe whatever you like, but it also cannot exalt your beliefs over those of another.

but well, let's see....
slavery was once held as being biblically acceptable.....it's outlawed now.
interracial marriage was considered against religion, and it is now allowed
divorce, segregation, women's votes, women's right to work outside the home, women's right to safety in her home....all of these things were argued against using biblical beliefs.




This Once great nation will fall hard and be devastated for turning away from God. If you cant see it happening before your eyes then you need to remove the blinders.


this great nation has killed so many with their bombs the last few decades for no other reason than the desire for dominance and they have defrauded so many countries of their wealth through their banking schemes, I am sorry, but if God is gonna bring devastation our way it will be over much more than a few gay marriages!
but preach on!!! heck I doubt if he is even noticing those few gay marriages!




top topics



 
69
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join