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

a reply to: xuenchen

Maybe she has a medical problem to begin with?

That might answer a lot of questions.

It would, and it would be an inseparable part of the intake interview and assessment of the client's situation. NO CLINICIAN who is doing their job does not consider every aspect of the the client's presentation.

Medications affect people in different ways.

Yes, they do.

For example: some people may present with a tight chest and light-headedness that stems from anxiety and be told they have COPD. Likewise, a person comes in with chronic gut pain and intestinal problems and are told they have diverticulitis......when in BOTH CASES, it is STRESS that is causing the symptoms.

Depends on who is consulted. I recommend Clinical Social Workers. NOT "Psychologists" and not "Psychiatrists" - who are taught to believe they are the expert and healer, and their client (patient) is "sick".

Clinical Social Workers look at the entire picture, rather than just prescribing meds. But they may recommend that the client see a prescriber if they feel it would facilitate the work of therapy.....in fact, CSWs are not allowed to prescribe, and neither are Psychologists. ONLY PSYCHIATRISTS (MDs) can prescribe.

THERAPISTS do not do that. MDs often do.

originally posted by: Cyborg11
But when the duties you signed up for are suddenly changed?

Job duties change all the time. But hers did not! Her job description INCLUDES issuing marriage licenses. She was issuing marriage licenses to legally qualified couples BEFORE the Supreme Court ruling.

She DID sign up to do that.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That, and the possibility of a medical condition like diabetes or a heart condition or something else that requires medication that some people have reactions from.

But there could also be a conspiracy with the entire mess.

A conspiracy like blackmail.

Perhaps Kim got caught in some low level local corruption or something.

Then somebody knows and gets a brainstorm to create a controversy that eventually leads to a major legal precedent like we are witnessing.

The "messages" are several, and sets the standard for future issues to be stopped ahead of time.

Prevents other public officials from doing this later on.

originally posted by: xuenchen
But there could also be a conspiracy with the entire mess.

A conspiracy like blackmail.

Perhaps Kim got caught in some low level local corruption or something.

No, there is no conspiracy, just a twisted religious nutter trying to push her beliefs on other people.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: xuenchen
But there could also be a conspiracy with the entire mess.

A conspiracy like blackmail.

Perhaps Kim got caught in some low level local corruption or something.

No, there is no conspiracy, just a twisted religious nutter trying to push her beliefs on other people.

If you say so.

But politics and party affiliations might be a factor in any possible conspiracy.

Everything is about next year's elections.

Big money and big issues are always an influence.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Stormdancer777
well gee, if we give up and stop focusing on them, we will be losing them alot faster!!!

we're not a theocracy, live with it!

They can't the christian right wants to jam the "Jesus" sharia law down every one in the USA throats.

a reply to: xuenchen

Did you not see my other post with the link SHOWING that this is tied to the Elections?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Jefferton

So tired of these religi-nazis whining about discrimination. Is it me or are they all getting a lot more annoying lately?

They are definitely getting a lot more annoying. And loud. And hysterical. The media laps it up to keep us all on the edge of our chair - but it is real....

And it's connected to the Elections....

The Fearsome Four: The Leading Governors Seeking 2016 GOP Nomination Are All Dismal Right-Wingers

(notice, this article doesn't address Trump's candidacy, just the GOVERNORS who are running.) They want a Theocracy. So do people like Kim Davis and whosherwhatsit who went to Office Depot to try to print sensationalist garbage and shove "God" at people.

Here is just ONE aspect of what they are all wanting to accomplish:

4. Reviving right-wing culture wars.

In What’s the Matter with Kansas? author Thomas Frank outlined the cynical strategy of pro-corporate politicians that intentionally provoked voters with hot-button social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and gun rights while avoiding economic inequality.

Voters in some of the poorest counties voted overwhelmingly for Republicans who subsequently stood against their economic interests. But in the decade since the publication of Frank’s insightful book, social conservatives have become much more aggressive in pushing their agenda and insisting that it be taken seriously. Thus, the four governors are staunchly anti-abortion.

The other three items they all are pushing are:

Crushing Labor Rights

Promoting Corporate Welfare and Crony Capitalism

Eliminating Social Welfare Programs

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Specifically, I am referring to Kentucky politicians and how they may be involved with the Kim Davis "issue".

It could be deep and involving her, the Governor, and the Attorney General as well as the law firm representing Davis.

a reply to: xuenchen

And Mike Huckabee. Don't forget, he was the one who orchestrated this whole stupid "release rally".

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Kim Davis is Sharia Law.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

And Mike Huckabee. Don't forget, he was the one who orchestrated this whole stupid "release rally".

I wonder what he thinks about the Oath Keepers?

If fanatics can pick and choose what to and not follow in the Bible
then why not the Constitution?...

It's nice knowing the Oath Keepers showed their true colors
as a lunatic fringe group. Not that is surprising...

I do not know if this graphic has been posted on ATS or not, but I find it appropriate to everybody surrounding Kim Davis.

a reply to: xuenchen


Read all about it here

a reply to: Dreamwatcher

A picture speaks a thousand words. These people who are so against gay marriage are no different from the racists in the 50's and 60's.



This guy points out the hypocrisy beautifully.

originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: Hefficide

A group that purports to exist solely to uphold the Constitution of the United States - taking up arms and flocking to defy it

Well to be fair, the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. This is simply Conservatives living up to their name sake and standing for the way things were. A classical Conservative if you will. Now you couple that with religious preaching and you have the current situation. Gay marriage is new and was shoved in the face of people who believe it is morally repugnant. I would imagine how you feel about them, is how they would feel about you. You could spin the argument on it's head quite easily. The difference is you have the backing of Government on your side.All the power, guns and laws are on your side.


V

To be fair also - you're correct that the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. It also doesn't say anything about wearing red t-shirts, driving sporty cars, attending baseball games, or reading books on trains. It does, however have some stuff tucked in their about freedom and equal rights. Did so many people actually fail high school civics class that we actually have to even discuss whether states are allowed to discriminate against individuals based upon the moral whims of some of the populace (even if 98% of the population feels a group should have less rights than others?)

No. Anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-freedom nonsense is what it is.

Well, pretty clearly shows that they are indeed the ignorant bigots that many suspected...wonder just how crazy the insane 'right' can get on this one...will this be universally denounced? Amazingly, I'm not sure. There is actually political pressure on the Republican Party to appeal to the insane bigots that would support such a thing! We'll see whether any reason is allowed at all, of if the people running for that party actually don't have a limit to the insanity they will support to 'appeal to their base.' Some base. The absurdity of saying limiting your ability to restrict others' rights is a restriction of your rights!

I always thought the Oathkeepers were just an ad hoc check against the possibility of government overreach in the event the armed forces were ever ordered to act against the people. To that end, I respected them at least in theory. This changes that completely for me, and they have lost my support.

On what they said and have threatened to do:

They did not merely state that they would offer her personal protection. That would be their (and her) prerogative.

That isn't what they said, however. What they said, was that they would intercede directly to prevent her detention, because they believe her rights were violated. That's not the same thing. That's threatening to physically defend her against duly appointed law enforcement, should she be found in continuing contempt and jailed again.

On what they have stated their position is:

They've said her constitutional rights were violated. Specifically, her 1st amendment rights, and the right to due process (namely a jury trial.)

1) Due process & jury trial: There exists, to my knowledge, no exemption from being jailed until such time as a jury trial might be convened, in the case of established contempt of court. If you are found in contempt, you can be jailed. It's as simple as that. I don't even know if a jury trial is ever called for in a case of contempt for that matter.

Unless of course they're going to argue that every case of contempt and subsequent jailing is a violation of due process. Why aren't they? Why are they being selective about only this instance?

2) 1st amendment: Her religious freedom has not been infringed upon. She has the right to hold, express, espouse, preach, and act upon her religious beliefs. That very freedom is why she was found in contempt. Her right to refuse to do her job based on said beliefs has not been infringed upon.

What she does not have the right to do, is continue to be found in due compliance with her oath of office, if she actively denies due process and equal protection clause protections from other American citizens. This is why she was found in contempt, and subsequently jailed.

Religious belief is not a "get out of jail free card" allowing an elected official to renege on their oath of office and deny other citizens due process and equal protection that SCOTUS has determined exists and is warranted, thus making it the law of the land.

The freedom of all to access said due process and to have said equal protection must, necessarily, by nature and definition, trump her personal religious disfavor toward certain individuals receiving them. That is not discrimination against her. Discrimination against her would be to jail her and disqualify her from office entirely without due process or cause whatsoever, predicated solely upon the presence of her religious beliefs.

The latter of which is what she is doing to same sex couples seeking marriage licenses.

My opinion. As always, feel free to disagree.

Peace.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

LOL!!! Hilarious.
"Oh, wait - I guess I brought the wrong notes."

whelp i agree that she was in the wrong, over thinking the issue, giving the actual legal document more power than it has in the religious sense.

what i want to know is why are all these confrontations between gays and christians happening lately and could it be that someone is orchestrating this, in an attempt to pit the two groups against each other in violent conflicts? and if so, why? could it be two birds one stone? then someone else can step into the gap with their potential problems already removed. i am incredibly suspicious these days, of government machinations.