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

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Hefficide

Welp.

I guess the Oath Keepers want to have a few of themselves martyred or something.

It's not really gonna go the way they want I'm thinking.

~Tenth

It is not going to go the way you are thinking, either.

Just waking up here.

I haven't read through all of the replies ( and thank you to all who have done so! ) - and I'm sure that this has been mentioned but will restate it just in case:

Liberty Counsel, Kim Davis's legal representation has refused the offer of the Oath Keepers, so the Oath Keeper leadership has issued a stand down order.

Upon request by Kim Davis’ legal team, Oath Keepers is canceling the planned security detail for Mrs. Davis in Morehead, Kentucky.

Oath Keepers has been contacted by Kim Davis’ legal team at Liberty Counsel, and they have, on her behalf, declined our offer of assistance in protecting her from a possible repeat incarceration by Federal District Court judge David Bunning. We will, of course, respect her wishes, and are hereby issuing a stand-down for our security volunteers who were planning on deploying to Morehead, Kentucky on Monday.

Source

However I still find it very troubling that the offer was made in the first place and am anxious to see if the Oath Keepers in the southeast respect the stand down order come Monday. My personal feeling is that we will likely see at least a few show up on Monday regardless. I think it will be too tempting a chance for some who have a desire to be on television or with a desire to simply play soldier by walking around in flak jackets while carrying semi automatic rifles in public.

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: Hefficide

Perfect!! So, we can group up all the religious lunatics at once, and in one swoop action take them all away

I love people who dedicate their whole life to a work of fiction... lol

Let us know when you find someone who ISN'T dedicated to a work of fiction... lol

Gandhi, the ultimate leader in civil disobedience....

In 1907, the Boer legislature passed a law requiring that all Indians register with the police and be fingerprinted. Gandhi, along with many other Indians, refused to obey this law. He was arrested and put in jail, the first of many times he would be imprisoned for disobeying what he believed to be unjust laws.
While in jail, Gandhi read the essay "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau, a 19th-century American writer. Gandhi adopted the term "civil disobedience" to describe his strategy of non-violently refusing to cooperate with injustice, but he preferred the Sanskrit word satyagraha (devotion to truth).

www.crf-usa.org...
DISOBEYING UNJUST LAWS....and he is still a hero for it.

Take it for what you will, but the real thing here is that people here are not really condemning her for breaking the law, that's just a convenient justification, they are condemning her for why she did it. And in fact what she is really showing everyone is that people on the Left are willing to break any law for what they want but condemn everyone else for the same thing.


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Giving equal rights to everyone is unjust?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

it's not a religious document she's signing. the divine part of the marriage already occured when they fell in love with each other. god doesnt need the state or a preacher/pastor/priest/cleric, to marry people. the state issues legal documents, that are not even remotely religious. she's not disobeying god by signing legal documents,since its a business document and she would have to start asking everyone who came in that needed business documents signed, whether they were gay or not (to be consistent in that position).

the part she's worried about (gay people being in love) is not in her purview as she would have to be present to stop them from being in love (and that's where the actual marriage occurs in god's sight). that's not her job as an official of the state or as a christian.

a reply to: undo


Looks like you are also missing my point. I'm not even defending her actions. It's not what I would do. What I am saying here is that while people lionize Gandhi for breaking the law in the name of justice, they condemn another, a Christian for obeying what she believes is divine law. That' all I'm saying here. I think everyone in their heart of hearts knows this is not really about her breaking a law, it's about her breaking one that they happen to value.
Progressives notoriously only defend those laws and issues which are important to them, they do not defend everyone's liberty, and are more than willing to use government authority to strong arm everyone else into accepting things on their terms.
I've been observing people arguing about this or that aspect of the law or courts, when all the while it's really about the agenda they believe in.
This isn't just about civil rights, it's about the moral relativism of secular humanism versus absolute moral values. Consider this:

Many readers of "A Secular Humanist Declaration" will be amused at the pretentious arrogance characterizing the signers' claim to a kind of monopoly on critical intelligence, rationality, intellectual enlightment, scientific integrity, the moral virtues, and appreciation for political freedom and social democracy. Much might be said, moreover, concerning the acute contradictions that characterize Secular Humanism's attempt to sustain a morality without God, to provide a foundation for human values without God the Creator, to discover rational moral principles without a logical reference to their source and ground in a transcendent Deity whom we in Western Civilization call God (and Who is the foundation for all religious and moral obligations).

The adamant opposition against indoctrination is therefore self contradictory. It is precisely the purpose of indoctrination to acquaint the student with a set of moral principles. When they state: "Children should learn about..." "Public education should deal with these values:, they are actually advocating indoctrination of their own ideas. Secular Humanism ultimately contradicts itself when it claims for itself a set of moral judgments and values, while at the same time denying that "any particular sect can claim for itself important values". The addition of the words "as their exclusive property" adds to the contradiction since the Secular Humanist statement is claiming truth as its own property; it is actually a sect setting up a list of doctrinaire declarations.
In fact secular humanists claim for themselves the prerogative of being the authentic interpreters of a universal moral law, of "rational moral principles". They implicitly claim to be the universal ethical umbrella group for all humanity.

credo.stormloader.com...

Here are several excepts from Judge Hand’s lucid, logical, and concise examination of Secular Humanism as a belief system that easily qualifies it to be regarded as a religion. He wroteHumanism] purports to establish a closed definition of reality; not closed in that its adherents know everything, but in that everything is knowable: can be reconciled by the human intellect aided only by the devices of that intellect’s own creation or discovery. The most important belief of this religion is its denial of the transcendent and/or supernatural: there is no God, no creator, no divinity. By force of logic, the universe is thus self-existing, completely physical and hence, essentially knowable. Man is the product of evolutionary, physical forces. He is purely biological and has no supernatural or transcendent spiritual component or quality. ...

In addition, humanism, as a belief system, erects a moral code and identifies the source of morality. This source is claimed to exist in humans and the social relations of humans. ...

Secular humanism ... has organizational characteristics.Some groups are more structured and hierarchical, others less so. ... These organizations proselytize and preach their theories with the avowed purpose of persuading nonadherents to believe as they do.:

www.thenewamerican.com...
Please carry on as you like.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

oh yeah well she has the constitutional right not to do it, but she also has the legal responsibility to uphold her end of the agreement in her career choice. it's the kind of job that if you to remain at it, you either have to abide by the laws of the country or be at the whims of the legal system. not a smart move all for something that isn't even a religious document.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Giving equal rights to everyone is unjust?

When it involves gays, then apparently not!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Giving equal rights to everyone is unjust?

When it involves gays, then apparently not!

I am again going to demonstrate that for secular humanists and radical Leftists, this is all about winning and getting what they want regardless of the true moral consequences.
A woman, a member of Ladies of the Left, called in to the Rush Limbaugh show to gloat over how they had won and gotten their way and Kim was in jail. This was a victory to her of course, but the shocking thing about it is she admitted they were corrupting the moral values of the youth and she was happy about it. She said she knew it was wrong and that Kim Davis is right. I post here again the transcript.

CALLER: Well, I'm just saying isn't it remarkable how effective the Ladies of the Left have been. In other words, we have a group called the Ladies of the Left that have gotten together and we've formed a unstoppable group of women to destroy the youth of the country by populating the schools with propaganda and --

RUSH: Okay, so you are calling to gloat in victory of your destruction of the moral code of the country and in schools?

CALLER: Very perceptive, Rush. That's why we admire you so much and we follow all of your 35 Undeniable Truths of life. We've stolen them and used them for our use because, as the youth have been dumbed down, they don't understand it's propaganda and they can't speak up because they think that this woman is wrong. And you know she's right. But we beat her. And we beat --

RUSH: So wait a minute. If I'm to understand you correctly here, Vanessa, you'RE part of the Ladies of the Left, some lesbians, and you've bullied and overpowered every bit of moral opposition? You're succeeding and destroying the moral code of the country and you're happy?

CALLER: Well, of course, but not just like me. Ladies of the Left --

www.rushlimbaugh.com...

And then at the bottom of the page Rush confirms that they used some kind of software to determine that she's a legit leftist.

So with that, may you enjoy going on with arguing your particular set of moral values or lack thereof.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Please don't use Rush Limbaugh as a source.

You do realize it isn't just the "leftists" who are against Kim Davis? There are Christians and conservatives who are against her. Hell even Westboro Baptist Church hates her.

The right and Christians compared her to Rosa Parks. That is silly. Kim Davis is the bus driver who refuses to do her job and drive the bus.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Gandhi, the ultimate leader in civil disobedience....

DISOBEYING UNJUST LAWS....and he is still a hero for it.

Take it for what you will, but the real thing here is that people here are not really condemning her for breaking the law, that's just a convenient justification, they are condemning her for why she did it. And in fact what she is really showing everyone is that people on the Left are willing to break any law for what they want but condemn everyone else for the same thing.

So, your definition of "just" is allowing a public official to discriminate against a particular group of citizens - based upon that officials personal biases?

You do realize that citing Gandhi as an example of Kim Davis's position is about as ironic as a thing can be. Right?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

that rush excerpt sounds like propaganda that might work in a third world country but come on.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

So with that, may you enjoy going on with arguing your particular set of moral values or lack thereof.

My primary moral value is simple:

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Now, come on and tell me how Satanic, leftist, progressive and horrible that is.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

that rush excerpt sounds like propaganda that might work in a third world country but come on.

That rush excerpt is the most fake thing ever. Used some kind of software to determine she's legit? HA HA HA!!!

a reply to: kaylaluv

playbook sounds like it's a bit outdated. the dark ages come to mind.

a reply to: Hefficide

Now, come on and tell me how Satanic, leftist, progressive and horrible that is.

Oh yeah Jesus was so horrible.

So I guess they are really Occasional Oath Keepers?, Selective Oath Keepers?, Agreeable Oath Keepers? Hypocritical Oath Keepers?

Like every other fringe group, they only support those parts of the Constitution that they agree with.

a reply to: Leonidas

So I guess they are really Occasional Oath Keepers?, Selective Oath Keepers?, Agreeable Oath Keepers? Hypocritical Oath Keepers?

You are on to it.

The "leftists" are terrible and satanic.

But nooooo not the "rightists".

a reply to: Hefficide

Nope I'm not defining her actions as anything but civil disobedience. I said that Gandhi was a hero for breaking an unjust British colonialist law and is lionized for it. I see people arguing about laws here and talking about how she broke the law for her belief. I said that people on the left are often more than willing to break laws they disagree with. But they are smart enough to get laws passed which favor them. They may know the laws they get passed are not morally right or they may think they have the moral imperative. I said that in secular humanism moral relativity is at play and I also posted the Limbaugh excerpt because a leftist admitted they deliberately corrupt the youth and they knew it's wrong and they beat Kim Davis. Was that enough of a recap?