Oath Keepers Offers Kim Davis Protection From Further Imprisonment by Judge

Courthouse Building

UPDATE: Due to Kim Davis’s Legal team, on her behalf, declining our offer of protection we are standing down. Please see this article for more information.

 

In this video, Stewart Rhodes and some of the Oath Keepers national and local leadership discuss the real issues behind what is happening in Rowan County, Kentucky.  We have had boots on the ground there since last week and will continue to have a presence.  Stewart Rhodes reached out personally to Davis’s legal counsel to offer protection to Kim, to ensure that she will not be illegally detained again. We would like to stress in the strongest terms possible that we are doing this not because of her views on gay marriage, but because she is an elected public servant who has been illegally arrested and held without due process.

STATEMENT BY STEWART RHODES:

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.

Now we see the rise of an imperial judiciary that not only legislates from the bench but is attempting to expand their “contempt” power to likewise swallow up our Bill of Rights and circumvent jury trial.   Both methods are used to allow the powerful office holder to merely point his finger and have his opponent thrown behind bars without a grand jury indictment and without being found guilty by a jury of their peers.  No innocent until proven guilty before a jury. Just “guilty” because the leader says so.  That is a dictatorship, whether done by a president or by a judge.  No one man should have that kind of power in his hands alone to decide guilt and impose a sentence of indefinite detention. Under our Constitution, that dictatorial power does not exist.  We must stand against this.  And so we will protect her and prevent it from happening again.   – Stewart Rhodes

Update:   Here is a link to her legal counsel’s motion to stay the judge’s order, which notes the due process problems with what the judge did:  https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/2015/090815_Emergency_Motion_to_Stay_Contempt_Order_%28brief_only%29.pdf

Categories: All, Featured

About Author

Jason Van Tatenhove

Jason is the Media Director and Associate Editor for Oath Keepers. jason@oathkeepers.org

Comments

  1. wingnut 9 September, 2015, 20:23

    Well done Oath Keepers! I am finally starting to see a much needed ray of sunshine piercing the dark cloud that has been hanging over this great country through your actions of past and present. Kudos…

    Reply this comment
    • Janet 10 September, 2015, 03:19

      I couldn’t agree with you more Wingnut! It’s about time we all started standing up for righteousness before its to late.

      Reply this comment
    • theuniquey 10 September, 2015, 03:36

      @Wingnut
      Finally! Excellent! You are representative a huge faction of America that is just now realizing that not only is something wrong, but there are actually INDIVIDUALS that are doing SOMETHING about it!
      Reach, teach and inspire, m’Friend!

      Reply this comment
    • Davide 10 September, 2015, 04:06

      Very well explained & executed. Thanks for enlightening me a bit more. yes Obama has become a dictator & of course these judges are feeling empowered by him but they must be stopped. Thank you Oath Keepers. God is behind you also!

      Reply this comment
    • proton32060 12 September, 2015, 01:57

      I hope you are right.

      Reply this comment
  2. highflight 9 September, 2015, 21:00

    With truth and support let them know what their constitutional oath means and their duty is:

    Jack Carter – Sheriff j.carter@rowancountysheriff.net
    Joe Cline – Chief Deputy j.cline@rowancountysheriff.net
    Ruford Abner – Deputy / D.V.O. r.abner@rowancountysheriff.net
    Mark Padgett – Deputy / S.R.O. m.padgett@rowancountysheriff.net
    James Dameron – Deputy j.dameron@rowancountysheriff.net
    Donnie Hall – Deputy d.hall@rowancountysheriff.net
    Delmer Hall – Deputy de.hall@rowancountysheriff.net
    Mark Cline – Deputy m.cline@rowancountysheriff.net
    Reda Harris – Deputy r.harris@rowancountysheriff.net
    Dave Mirus – Deputy d.mirus@rowancountysheriff.net
    Robert Clemons – Deputy r.clemons@rowancountysheriff.net
    Kenny Trent – Deputy k.trent@rowancountysheriff.net
    Scott Barker – Deputy s.barker@rowancountysheriff.net
    Robert Busby – Deputy r.busby@rowancountysheriff.net
    Timothy James – Deputy t.james@rowancountysheriff.net
    Baker Hollis – Court Security Supv. b.hollis@rowancountysheriff.net

    Reply this comment
  3. Cal 9 September, 2015, 21:15

    Thank you for standing up for the US Constitution! Thank you for keeping the Oath!

    Cal

    If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

    Reply this comment
    • BowserUSC 11 September, 2015, 21:16

      Except that they’re assisting in the violation of the United States Constitution. Regardless of personal beliefs, the courts decision was enacted in accordance with the framework laid out by the United States Constitution, and by assisting in violating the US Constitution, they are forfeiting the protections provided to them by the US Constitution as well as violating their oaths to uphold it. If successful in preventing lawful authorities from performing their duties outlined by the US Constitution, they will create a precedent that will allow the US government to strip us of the protections provided by the 2nd amendment.

      Reply this comment
  4. NeoVictorian 9 September, 2015, 21:20

    Thought this had been all argued out in the last Kim Davis article here. But jail time for Contempt of Court isn’t ‘illegal’..

    Civil Contempt
    Civil contempt occurs when a person refuses to obey a court order. Civil contempt can be “purged” by following the court order. A fine, confinement in jail, or both can be imposed for civil contempt. The sanctions are meant to coerce compliance with the court’s order rather than to punish the person. If jailed, the person will be released from jail when he/she complies with the court order. The failure to comply with an injunction (a court order directing a person to do or not do a certain act) can be civil contempt.

    Reply this comment
    • Big Al 9 September, 2015, 22:39

      Civil contempt/contempt of court is such a loose term nowadays being used in the wrong manner by many rogue judges that it’s not funny. The opinions of judges and/or even those from the highest court are not law and they do not trump State law. Want the law changed, go through the legislative process, especially if we are dealing with constitutionality of said law. Most of us I would wager are on the same page about this whole business of government interfering in the whole marriage deal. They need to keep their noses out of the peoples business…way too much control & power at their disposal as it is.

      Reply this comment
      • NeoVictorian 10 September, 2015, 13:56

        The process was followed. A law was created: Legislative. Its legality on constitutional grounds was challenged: Judicial. Appeal, appeal, Supreme Court. Law declared unconstitutional.

        Reply this comment
        • Cal 10 September, 2015, 16:23

          Kentucky Constitution is what the law clerk followed as her Oath requires of her.

          The duties assigned to those that SERVE WITHIN the general government are written up within the US Constitution – basically their contract – and they do NOT trump state Constitutions EXCEPT when it is not following the US Constitution and all that is in PURSUANCE THEREOF IT, and this is not a general (federal) government DELEGATED authority (power). Remember that the general government authority delegated deals with MOSTLY foreign affairs, and not much else. That it was created so that each state was not making deals/treaties with foreign countries, but that each state’s REPRESENTATIVE would go serve to stand in for each state and what they wanted in foreign treaties, foreign etc.

          Their authority is put into writing so it is easily verifiable as to what they are ALLOWED to do. Plus Obama SERVES within the Executive Branch which is FORBIDDEN to create laws that are binding on the people, but can create that which are only binding on those who serve within the Executive branch.

          Only the legislative branch, those actually elected by the people are DELEGATED the authority to create laws that are in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. No one else who serves within our governments were delegated that power. Any law not actually created by those elected, though they are ALLOWED assistance, is not binding on the American people.

          Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. …”

          James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

          Thomas Jefferson: “I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones.”

          James Madison, Federalist 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general (federal) government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is LIMITED TO CERTAIN ENUMERATED OBJECTS, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

          James Madison: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

          Thomas Paine, “Dissertation on First Principles of Government”: “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself.”

          Reply this comment
          • Ken2 11 September, 2015, 02:40

            Great post And arguments Cal. Thanks.

          • Fern 11 September, 2015, 15:30

            There’s the pesky Supremacy Clause of the US Consitution. Perhaps Kentucky should secede

          • REAL Oathkeeper 12 September, 2015, 03:15

            Cal, maybe you want to read up on the 14th amendment? Specifically, you’ll want to pay attention to the equal protection clause. Essentially, it says is a right or privilege is legal in one state, it’s legal elsewhere. If California legalizes SSM but Kentucky says it’s illegal then the SCOTUS says that SSM is legal, then Kentucky can’t say it’s illegal anymore.

            I realize there’s a lot of nuance to it but it’s the law.

            Also, just because you disagree with the Judge doesn’t mean he was acting ‘illegally’. And, as an aside, Bunning was appointed by George W Bush in 2002. He’s one of yours.

      • Ace Duncan 11 September, 2015, 18:16

        You may want to take a look at the Supremacy Clause.

        Reply this comment
    • Paulrevere01 10 September, 2015, 03:16

      Hear here…

      Reply this comment
    • Scott 10 September, 2015, 06:19

      we can’t just mindlessly obey any order the government tells us. If they are unconstitutionally stripping us of our God given rights as human beings, then we have a duty to resist.

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 10 September, 2015, 16:26
      • BowserUSC 11 September, 2015, 21:18

        Resist by violating the US Constitution?

        Reply this comment
        • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 21:26

          No, by upholding it.

          Reply this comment
          • BowserUSC 11 September, 2015, 21:53

            It’s not upholding it. She is violating the US Constitution and you are assisting her.

            The framework laid out by the US Constitution was followed to the letter.

            Forget about the fact that the Supreme Court invalidated a law they found unconstitutional (which is the powers granted granted to them by the US Constitution. Ff you really think that’s the case, change it through the legal measures provided for you by the US Constitution).

            She is violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution. While performing the duties of the US government, she is not allowed to take actions that support the establishment of a religion. She publicly stated her reasoning is religious, and therefore she has admitted to violating the US Constitution. If the Kentucky Department of Health decided pork could no longer be served at restaurants in the state because eating pork is a violation of Islam, that would be unconstitutional. This is literally the same thing, and in that case you would be sending men to protect restaurants who chose to serve pork.

          • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 22:39

            Bowser,

            This is not a First Amendment issue. Nothing she did promoted the establishment of a religion. Whatever her reasoning, she abided by State Law. This is a States Rights issue.
            BowserUSC said: If the Kentucky Department of Health decided pork could no longer be served at restaurants in the state because eating pork is a violation of Islam, that would be unconstitutional.

            I reply: The US Government has passed countless laws limiting what we can put in our bodies. Does this mean all those laws are Unconstitutional? I happen to believe so. A number of States have passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana, yet Federal Law bans it. Are all these States wrong? They have nullified US Law, saying it is beyond the purview of the Federal Government. Food supplements have been banned, though the health benefits have been shown. The FDA has banned medicines needed by critically ill people. Where is the FDA’s authority to do this written into the Constitution? The growing of Industrial Hemp is banned by Federal Law, even though farmers grew it in this country in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries. In some states landowners were required to grow it. Where is the authority in the Constitution for the Federal Gov. to prevent its being grown?

            We have gun Laws, both State and Federal, yet the 2nd Amendment states we have the Right to bear arms. For those who will reply that it is not an individual Right, but only for the purpose of the militia, I would point out that all able-bodied persons are members of the militia. The militia is in the Constitution, as being NECESSARY for a free people, yet it doesn’t exist, though it is mandated in the Constitution.

            Free Speech zones, like at the Political Party Conventions, and at the Bundy ranch, are another issue that I don’t hear people screaming about, who chant for gay marriage laws. I, personally, have no problem with gays/lesbians living together. Just don’t call it a marriage, because it isn’t.

            The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, NDAA, surveillance of phones, computers and in public places. Drones. The list is endless.

            Bottom line: The Federal Government has over-stepped its Constitutional mandate in hundreds of ways. The KIm Davis case is just another in a long line of abuses. It is time to roll back the tyranny. It is time to restore our freedoms and our Republic.

  5. Scooter 9 September, 2015, 22:20

    There was no court to be in contempt of.

    Reply this comment
    • Dave 11 September, 2015, 21:55

      Yes there was. She was sued. She lost the initial case and all appeals. The court then ordered her to perform her duties. She refused again and was called back to the court and held in contempt.

      Reply this comment
  6. StormN1 10 September, 2015, 01:04

    Haven’t seen the video yet but great explanation. Delighted to learn something on this issue.

    Reply this comment
  7. Liberty Sanders 10 September, 2015, 03:09

    Sorry Stewart, you are dead wrong on this. This woman is a sworn public official holding an entire county hostage to her PERSONAL religious beliefs. That won’t fly. If this woman can’t perform the full range of her duties because of her beliefs then it is her duty to resign her position. Her incarceration was not only legal but totally justified.

    Reply this comment
    • mpelectronics 10 September, 2015, 03:58

      Judicial Tyranny was committed by the Supreme Court. The clown ruling, is “null and void”. Do your duty in research in LAW!

      Anyone that has taken the OATH has a DUTY to disobey!

      Reply this comment
    • Vintac 10 September, 2015, 08:05

      I agree Liberty Sanders. If a Christian soldier doesn’t get to choose to stop firing in the field because the bible says thou shalt not kill.

      Public servants accept duties when they take their jobs, and if you can’t do it, get out of the way and let someone else who will – your personal feelings don’t enter into the equation. Unless of course that order/duty is illegal, then you should disobey it as mpelectronics said.

      In the case of this clerk, she’s refusing to enforce a law that the majority of Americans want – so she is far from being asked to perform an illegal duty. The Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that it is unconstitutional for States to outlaw gay marriage. That decision has been very popular with the American people. If we really want to support the constitution, than we DO NOT support this woman who is allowing her personal beliefs to trump the Constitution and our Federal Laws.

      She’s not a victim who is being asked to perform an illegal duty – she’s just a biggot.

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 10 September, 2015, 16:59

        First, she upheld the Kentucky Constitution. Second, she suspended ALL marriage licenses, did not pick and choose what to enforce. She stopped all until the Kentucky legislature made a LAWFUL decision. Third, she has a PROTECTED right to her religious beliefs and she did not try to force them on anyone else while she upheld Kentucky law, though she did voice them.

        “The Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that it is unconstitutional for States to outlaw gay marriage.”

        The Supreme Court used FOREIGN LAW which is unlawful, even Treasonous here in the USA. The ONLY precedence that they are allowed to use, the only laws, IS the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof, or VERY early American law before the US Constitution was created.

        The Supreme Court does NOT have jurisdiction over the states on what they do EXCEPT when they are following exactly what the US Constitution says and nothing else. All other powers NOT DELEGATED by the states are RESERVED to the states; and the powers NOT DELEGATED by the people to the states and the general government are RESERVED to the people.

        Just because those serving within the general government are committing Treason does not make it a “law” here in the USA. They are subservient to the states who DELEGATED the authority they are currently using through the creation of the US Constitution which creates the general government.

        READ a bit, such as the US Constitution, how it was created, who created it and delegated specific put-into-writng authorities to it. It is NOT the all powerful Oz, it is the least of our governments created to be dealing with foreign affairs mostly. That is ALL that it is. And we are going to replace every TREASONOUS person who serves within it, whatever their position they occupy because their OATH requires them to “Support and defend” the US Constitution, not the general government and increase its powers.

        “That decision has been very popular with the American people.”

        Funny, that is not true as from what I have been told by others, by comments made by others on other sites, etc.

        James Madison, Father of the US Constitution in Federalist 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general (federal) government is NOT to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. ITS JURISDICTION IS LIMITED to certain enumerated (listed) objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

        James Madison, Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (It was established. WE call it the US Constitution.)

        Those that serve within the general government are NOT above the state governments; they are concurrent with them, and their assigned and delegated duties are mostly dealing with foreign affairs.

        James Madison, Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

        James Madison, Federalist 46: “The Federal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes… They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”

        Reply this comment
        • Vintac 11 September, 2015, 02:27

          The US Constitution trumps the KY Constitution because of the Supremacy Clause. She is violating Americans 14th Amendment rights, as ruled by the Supreme Court, by discriminating based on sex. She had no problem signing marriage certs when it was only straight couples, but as soon as she was required to sign same sex couple certs she stopped doing the duties of her station. If the Supreme Court cannot rule on interpretations of our laws and Constitution, than who can? Lesser judges? Individuals like you and me? We’re a part of the same Patriot organization designed to protect Constitutional rights, and we don’t even agree on some points. That would be a whole mess of different interpretations and a complete cluster fuck, so we need some point of clarity, and that currently is the Supreme Court.

          Reply this comment
          • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 02:39

            Vintac,
            You ask: If the Supreme Court cannot rule on interpretations of our laws and Constitution, than who can?

            I answer: The General Government was created by the States, who banded together in a Compact we know as the Constitution. The General Government did not create the States, the States created the General Government. The Compact gives the General Government certain powers. It is the people, through the States, who are the final arbiter of whether the General Government is abiding by that Compact.

        • Vintac 11 September, 2015, 03:58

          First paragraph: She upheld the KY Constitution over the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment which states you may not discriminate based on sex. Her reasons for not signing marriage certificates was clearly voiced as you pointed out, and is absolutely about sex, even if she stopped signing them for everyone. The Kentucky Legislature does not need to make a decision on this because the Supreme Court has already ruled that it would be a violation for States to pass any laws banning same sex marriage. You yourself state that Constitutional issues are the only things the Supreme Court can rule on, and they have. Kim’s religious freedoms have not been infringed upon and she may freely practice her religion just as any other American can. That being said, you cannot break the law in pursuit of your religion or you are a criminal. A Satanist may not sacrifice a child and claim religious freedom, and she cannot deny government issued marriage certificates based on sexual orientation. She is discriminating based on sex and violating the 14th amendment rights of many Americans. Even if she is denying the licenses to everyone, her stated reason for doing so is clearly based on sex, so to think otherwise you would have to strap on some pretty large blinders and never listen to a word that Kim Davis has said.

          Paragraph 3: Which foreign law did the Supreme Court use? My understanding is that they pointed at the 14th Amendment as their argument against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Even before the Constitution was created, this was one of the roles of the supreme court. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

          Paragraph 4: Again, refer to the 14th Amendment being violated. The Supreme Court is enforcing exactly what the Constitution says, and they are not taking powers from the States.

          Paragraph 5: Same argument. No laws were made, the Supreme Court simply pointed at the Constitution and said, No, that’s not acceptable. Again, which foreign law was used, and how does referring to the Constitution make them traitors?

          Paragraph 6: You tell me to READ a bit (your caps). Seems that I have, and it seems that so far my arguments still apply. The Supreme Court simply pointed at the 14th Amendment, and Kim Davis is the one refusing to not discriminate. I’m with you on replacing treasonous individuals, I just think you’re assigning that label wrongly in this circumstance. Maybe those individuals are still Treasonous, but not for this reason. Kim Davis took that Oath, and she is refusing to honor the 14th Amendment, so if you want to talk treason….

          Paragraph 8: One of the best things about this country is that we can all have different viewpoints. According to the PewResearchCenter’s numbers, American opinion changed around 2011, and since then approval of same sex marriages has been steadily climbing (and is expected to continue climbing as younger generations grow to adulthood) while the opposition continues to shrink. Both opinions are valid, but only 1 is supported by the 14th Amendment. I don’t know who you’ve been talking to, or what other sites you’ve been visiting, but the numbers are clear: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

          Paragraph 9 -10: I agree that the powers of the Federal government have grown way beyond what they are supposed to be, and we need to reduce them back down to their Constitutional levels. However, this issue isn’t about government overreach since they were only pointing to the Constitution, not making any new laws or powers. They’re just saying, “No, you took an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, you can’t choose to ignore the 14th Amendment because it suits you.” She cannot choose to not perform her sworn duties as long as they are lawful, the same as a Christian soldier could not choose to not participate in lawful combat after joining the Army because the Bible says thou shall not kill. The States are bound to the Federal Constitution by their Voluntary act of ratifying that very same Constitution, and they are still considered individual sovereign States (not just swallowed up into the larger stateless America, thus losing their statehood. This is to allow the states to retain their identities while also having a functional federal system operating in tandem with it.). Nothing new there, I just think you may be reading it wrong, as if somehow State rights apply over the Federal Constitution, but please correct me if I’m wrong. However, the Supremacy Clause in the Federal Constitution clearly establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as “the supreme law of the land. It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state. Since the States ratified and bound themselves to the Constitution, the 14th Amendment applies over any KY laws or KY Constitution Kim Davis may quote. This is why the Feds can still bust a person for marijuana in a State where it has been made legal, though they often choose to honor a States choices anyway.

          Paragraph 11-13: I agree. The feds overstep their power all the time. Often in invasive and life destroying ways. They seem to think they are above the law and can do whatever they want and will trample a States rights if they can get away with it. They should be dealing with managing our military and foreign affairs, our roads and some other infrastructure, and make sure that all the States follow the Constitution that they voluntary signed into existence. However, in this particular issue, I don’t see the Feds crapping on the State, they’re just enforcing the 14th Amendment right to protection from discrimination as the states agreed to when they ratified the Constitution in the first place. They’re not placing themselves above the States in this case, other than by enforcing the Supremacy Clause that the states agreed to to enforce the Constitution. That seems appropriate to me. They have made no new or inappropriate laws, nor do I see them trying to enlarge their sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other, they’re just enforcing the Constitution we’ve all already agreed to. Kim Davis is the one who has expanded her sphere of jurisdiction to the detriment to the Constitutional freedoms of the American people.

          I want to thank you, Cal, for having an intelligent conversation about this topic with me. For educating me on some finer points that I needed to know, and for encouraging me to research the topic more deeply. Hopefully I was able to clarify why I see things the way I do and provide hard reasons as to why, even if you don’t agree with me. We all have the same end goal of protecting Americans, and it’s good that we’re able to have adult conversations about how best to do (or not do) so.

          If I am in error on any of these points, please correct me. I’m certainly no more perfect than any other human being on the face of the earth, and I know that just because I see something a certain way doesn’t mean it is right. I can change my mind if given sufficient reason. Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me in such a concise and thought out manner. Respect.

          Reply this comment
          • anne 12 September, 2015, 09:07

            Just a quick comment about your Bible analogy….. Did you know that in the translations of the Bible one commandments wording changed. Thou shall do no murder became Thou shalt not kill. The rules of war were written out in the old testament, there is a verse that says there is a time for war….. the commandment clearly meant not to murder someone. God knows there are times we must fight wars.

        • steve 11 September, 2015, 15:46

          Wrong – she forced her subordinates to not issue licenses, even when they wanted to.

          Reply this comment
  8. Billwitten 10 September, 2015, 03:10

    Mr. Rhodes,

    Thank you, Sir. You continuously make me proud to be an Oathkeeper.

    –billw

    Reply this comment
  9. Paulrevere01 10 September, 2015, 03:15

    When I vote for an elected position, here at the grass roots level, I am trusting that those elected, execute the law on a level playing field, balanced scale with no influence involved from the elected’s personal views…PERIOD.
    Get out of this one OK, you art doing some kind of emotional knee-jerk here.

    Reply this comment
    • Vintac 10 September, 2015, 08:15

      This seems to be the most common consensus of people commenting here. Many of our Members want nothing to do with this woman and her unconstitutional campaign, Stewart Rhodes. Please hear us.

      Reply this comment
  10. Mike 10 September, 2015, 03:17

    Oathkeepers has this all wrong. The correct thing for Kim Davis to do is resign. It is her job to issue marriage licenses. The Supreme Court passed a decision that same sex marriage is now legal. She chose to not follow a judge’s and was jailed for contempt. I think I’m going to have to rethink my membership in Oathkeepers. You are protecting a person that is using religion to not follow the oath she took to perform the duties of her office. As I said I will be canceling my membership in this organization as I feel it has now been itself infected with religious zealots. Adios Oathkeepers

    Reply this comment
    • Vintac 10 September, 2015, 08:13

      This is the first thing the Oath Keepers have done that has made me question my membership as well. If we protect this woman, we will be protecting someone who is putting their personal beliefs above the lawful duties of their public service job, and even worse, we would be supporting an Unconstitutional act, which is abhorrent to the beliefs of the Oath Keepers. The Supreme Court ruled that it is Unconstitutional for a State to make gay marriage illegal, and yet here we are talking about supporting the woman who is the poster child for making that Unconstitutional thing happen. We’re supposed to support the constitution above all else in this organization, and this seems more like a power play to get media attention than anything remotely supporting the Constitution. I’m not giving up yet, but this definitely shook my trust in our OK leadership. WTF, guys.

      Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 10 September, 2015, 08:25

      You miss the point. Whatever you think of her actions, she has a right to due process. So, you want us to set aside the due process that is her right, because you don’t like what she did? The state could impeach her and remove her. The state of Kentucky could even possibly prosecute her for a state crime. And the Feds could possibly prosecute her for a federal offense. At least then she would get a jury trial, and yet none of that is happening? Why? Because they don’t have to do any of that since the judge just took it upon himself to A. create a crime. B. Decide the proper sentence of indefinite detention till she submits, and C. Find her guilty and sentence her. . All on his own. Doesn’t that bother you? Do you want to live in a nation where any judge, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, can just do that to state and local elected officials, or potentially to any of us? No charge listed. No defined crime with the elements of that crime posted. No requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of her peers, rather than just the judge himself. No chance for a jury to nullify and refuse to convict, which is one of the core purposes of a jury.

      None of that bothers you because you don’t like her actions. If she is guilty of a crime, prosecute her! If she is committing malfeasance in her duties, or even violating her oath, as you say, then impeach her and remove her from office. But do those things in the constitutional ways that are already in existence. Don’t create some vast and unlimited power of a judge to just do it all himself. It is not his place, and not his power. That power belongs to the people alone.

      And if you can’t see that, and still insist that we should not defend her on that issue of due process, then good riddance to you. We don’t want people as members who can’t see the need to defend the due process rights of everyone, and anyone, whether you agree with their views or actions or not, and regardless of what they are accused of doing. That doesn’t make it right to just have a judge “decree” that she be thrown in the slammer indefinitely.

      And for those in love with the contempt power, you should know that in matters of criminal contempt, where the sentence is longer than six months, the accused has a right to a JURY TRIAL. And that is recognized by even the current crop of federal judges. Go look it up. But even if they didn’t recognize it, our Constitution sure does. – Stewart

      Reply this comment
      • Robby Robinson 10 September, 2015, 12:44

        The Supreme Court has ruled that state laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional. Due process? Contempt of Court can and has resulted in immediate incarceration. Ms. Davis is NOT being accused of a crime, she was jailed for contempt of court. She is VIOLATING the Constitution, which was what I thought WE are all about!
        Make NO mistake, I am a Christian and I stand with Ms. Davis on her beliefs as I hold the very same beliefs. Yet my Christian views have NO place in government.

        Her actions violate the tenets of OUR Constitution. This is the very same SCOTUS that ruled on the Heller decision. It appears that we are cherry picking and back the Constitution, but only on issues we agree with? NO WAY, that is NOT US!!
        Please answer this question, is Kim Davis violating the tenets of OUR Constitution, yes or no?

        Reply this comment
      • elrush 10 September, 2015, 18:34

        For a guy who purports to speak for an organization that claims to stand, above all, for the Constitution, you sure have a poor grasp of of the legal and Constitutional issues involved here. Again, as paulrevere, Vintac and others have explained quite well above and below, she was NOT incarcerated for her religious beliefs; and her due process rights have NOT been violated. Rather, because the SC refused to hear her appeal on the original Order (by the state, pursuant to the SC ruling), that Order was in effect, which meant that she was legally bound to issue marriage licenses to all those who met the qualifications. Her defiance of that Order led to the hearing (aka, due process) in which she stated that she would continue to defy the legal order, which resulted in the finding of contempt, and her jailing. What part of that don’t you get?
        As for the “Kentucky Constitution” nonsense, two things: first, the supremacy clause; and second, the order to issue licenses was given by the Governor.

        Reply this comment
      • Dale 11 September, 2015, 03:08

        Forget what Kentucky law Ms. Davis broke, what about the 1st Amendment? By evoking God into the equation, she is breaking a fundamental American law of separation of church & state. Surely you remember that some of our founding fathers were religiously persecuted in Europe. Stewart, I see this as cherry picking to the extreme. For what reason? Are you blinded by anger, impatience, politics, faith or worse yet, the spotlight? Don’t you realize our main battle is still a war of words/ideology? If OK continues down this path, we will lose this war. I am a proud founding member of OK & still believe in it’s initial purpose, but you are starting to steer this ship into dangerous waters. I can’t count how many times others have told me I am the most patient man they know. But this hypocritical rush to judgement is testing my patience & making me question my membership. I can only imagine how the less patient feel.

        Reply this comment
      • Vintac 11 September, 2015, 04:30

        I understand that her rights were violated and that’s not acceptable. Even after she violated the 14th Amendment rights of Americans by being absolutely discriminatory in her role as a public servant, and refusing public services to Americans because she doesn’t want to let the homosexuals have their way, it’s still not ok for her rights to be violated. I don’t disagree with you there, even though I completely disagree with her actions. Neither her actions, nor the judges actions are acceptable. However, people are wrongfully arrested every single day day who aren’t spearheading movements against our constitutional rights, and I’m just not sure why you’re chomping at the bit to protect her while she’s doing so, allowing her to further her personal agenda. Sure, she’s stopped ALL marriage certificates for the time, but her stated reason for doing so is absolutely discriminatory. Is that really the battle you want to fight when there are so many other issues in this country today that need our time and attention? You’re dragging our name through the mud with this one by protecting a public servant who is refusing to honor her oath to the Constitution (while we all honor ours, even if no longer receiving paychecks for doing so), which includes the 14th Amendment, and it shows that our core values are just words, and that media attention is what we crave. Show me a complete asshole who I disagree with on every point, but does so legally and in the interests of the American people, and I’ll gladly stand by your side in protecting them. With this woman, I’m just saying that we should choose our battles and invest our resources where they will have the biggest impact. Maybe you think getting our name in the media is the best way to do that, and that is the biggest advantage that I can see to protecting this bigot while she slams the 14th, but I feel that is counter to our root cause of defending the Constitutional rights of Americans, and it’s against the Oath that I took to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States. Pick your battles carefully is all I’m saying. You’ve already made it quite clear to myself and others that if we don’t agree with your reasoning to protect her, that we should leave the organization because you don’t want us. Even though I feel like I’m on the side protecting the Constitution and you are just being a media whore and protecting someone who is dead against the values in the 14th amendment, I’ve sent my resignation. I will also go to the social media sites where I’ve been defending the actions of the oath keepers and make it clear why I’m leaving the group so that my name is no longer associated with yours in a positive manner. I will find a Patriot group who truly supports the Constitution and not the people who fight to destroy it. You have fun with your media attention grabs.

        Reply this comment
      • Christine 11 September, 2015, 18:16

        Exactly! Thank you, Stewart! I applaud you!

        Reply this comment
      • Dave 11 September, 2015, 21:26

        She does not have the right to due process because she is acting as a government official. As a government official, she has forfeited the rights of the individual while performing the duties required of her, and her actions are clearly in violation of the constitution you swore to uphold. If she can no longer fulfill those duties, it is her obligation to remove herself.

        Reply this comment
  11. Janet 10 September, 2015, 03:17

    Thank you Oath Keepers! Many talk but you walk the talk and doing something about the injustices we are all facing. May God bless you!

    Reply this comment
  12. Tom 10 September, 2015, 03:26

    You mean what you say! Thank you. You are not just talk but follow with action and that is commendable.

    Reply this comment
    • Vintac 10 September, 2015, 08:19

      If he meant what he said, we would be supporting the Constitution in this and not Kim Davis who is going directly against the Supreme Courts ruling that States making gay marriage illegal is Unconstitutional. If preventing gay marriage is Unconstitutional, than why are we supporting the woman leading the charge? This is just plain backwards.

      Reply this comment
      • Rob 10 September, 2015, 16:06

        Show me where exactly in the Constitution the Federal Govt has a say in Marriage? Please so re-read the 10th amendment. What you have is a branch of government that has convinced the world it is the arbiter of the limits of its own power. Understanding human nature, how do you think that eventually plays out? Do you really believe the founders intended 9 un-elected attorneys could make law?

        Reply this comment
        • Tojo 11 September, 2015, 03:55
        • Vintac 11 September, 2015, 06:19

          Constitution 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United states.” (This would absolutely include making laws to prevent the privilege of gay marriage)

          Reply this comment
        • Dave 11 September, 2015, 21:41

          You obviously don’t understand the powers the United States Constitution grants the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined the law to be unconstitutional because it violates a pre-existing law. They did not create a new law, they upheld the law.

          Kim Davis then decided she would no longer perform her duties as an elected representative of the US Government and was promptly sued for her actions. She is not allowed to say, “I’m not going to perform my duties until a new law is created to clarify my position.” She lost the case and multiple appeals, and was then ordered to perform her duties. Because she violated that order to continue performing her duties, as well as preventing her subordinates from carrying out their duties, she was found in contempt of court.

          This is not some “attorney” arbitrarily jailing someone, a judge who I will remind you has their own personal beliefs that they are ignoring because they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Due process was followed throughout the many steps required for this action to occur and attempting to subvert this process is in itself a violation the US Constitution and the oaths sworn to protect it.

          Reply this comment
  13. Blue Max 10 September, 2015, 03:29

    May the Christ Spirit fill you, and the Power of the All Mighty walk with you.
    In that the evil and poison which has come to America by the sons of the Devil can be eradicated

    Continue in your quest, the time of evil has little time left, be for America is well, and healed again.
    The Holly Spirit is watching.

    Reply this comment
  14. Harvieux 10 September, 2015, 03:30

    Folks, Kim Davis is a foreign agent under a corporate contract (subscribed oath of office to a document not found in law but she acquiesced so such is legal) with a purported corporate government as her employer. Kim breached that corporate contract by defying a direct order from her superior. She should have resigned as opposed to breaching her contract and that judge had every right persecute her for her breach.

    I understand that she was attempting to honor God’s law but, she defied God’s law by subscribing to an unlawful oath of office in the first place, even if such was done unknowingly because ignorance of the law is no excuse and which happens to be the same maxim of law these foreign agents occupiers purporting to be lawful government love to use against their slaves, US citizens.

    Reply this comment
  15. Dr. Clifford N. Alford 10 September, 2015, 03:34

    She has a right to her religious convictions, but under the law she only has the right to obey the law – and a decision by the Supreme Court is the law – or to resign in protest or otherwise. She does not have the right to refuse a court order to do her job beyond that and so deserved the contempt of court order to force either compliance or resignation.

    Reply this comment
    • benzAngel 10 September, 2015, 04:28

      A decision by the supreme court is not law. The judicial branch is not the legislative branch. The legislative branch is the only branch with the authority to create laws which also must be constitutional. Kim is following KY law that has not been changed and oath keepers is correct and courageous to protect her against this unlawful judge.

      Reply this comment
      • Vintac 10 September, 2015, 08:23

        The Supreme Court did not create any laws, they purely ruled that States making laws to prevent gays from marrying infringes on their Constitutional rights, which is absolutely within their power. The same Constitutional rights that this organization swore an Oath to protect. We’re on the wrong side of this one as the Constitution trumps Kentucky law.

        Reply this comment
  16. QuantumMentor 10 September, 2015, 03:34

    You haven’t seen it, yet you wish to defend her… because she is a bigot? Last time I worked with any Judges Chambers- there was no evangelism going on- as a matter of fact the 10 commandments were taken down here. This is a human rights issue- but you can twist it to be constitutional, and I lose even more respect for this absurdity

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 10 September, 2015, 08:33

      Haven’t seen what? And we don’t defend her due process rights because of her views. We defend them because she has a right to them.

      Twist it to be constitutional? Whenever any American is placed in indefinite detention by the say so of one man, it is a constitutional issue. Was when Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamdi were indefinately detained by Bush, despite being widely considered bad guy members of Al Qaida, and I spoke out against that detention because it was wrong, no matter what they had done or were accused of doing. And this detention was wrong no matter what she did or is accused of doing.

      Amazing, and sad, that people can’t separate their view of whether the person is good or bad from their view of whether the Constitution should be defended.

      Reply this comment
      • Russ 10 September, 2015, 14:00

        The comments about this publicly elected official in Kentucky being bigoted, being an oath breaker are made from ignorance of our Constitution. You laid out the due process reasons why our organization is backing this lady and those reasons are completely in-line with the existence of the Oath Keepers.

        People saying that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on an issue makes that ruling law are uneducated nitwits who are perhaps in the wrong place? Scotus nor any other jurisdictional Court has the constitutional power to make laws or abolish them. That power is only and always been left solely to the legislatures or to the people. Legislatures state “yea” and “nay” when laws are being enacted but why have the Courts been allowed to rewrite what exists as law via their opinions which changes the Constitution without legislated Amendment (whether federal or state jurisdictions)? This has gone on forever in the name of Case Law but when will it stop and the Constitution return to the Constitution instead an ideological measuring stick? Lawyers have been lawyer(ing) for forever and observed our Constitution become practically irrelevant via Case Law opinions (and decree via a potus)!

        Given all of that, the federal judge actually broke his oath and even broke Kentucky law when he took it upon himself to decree that she was in violation of his order and passed judgement on her without a trial by jury. If people do not see the dangerous direction of such actions by members of the judiciary declaring themselves the all-powerful on human activity, then they deserve the tyranny and horror that history shows will take place if this sort of circumvention of our Constitution is not opposed and stopped cold by We The People.

        Let me remind some commenters here that just because you say you are an oath keeper does not mean that you are one; your blatant ignorance on the separation of powers and the concept of states rights shows that you either are in total denial of the forces that wish to destroy our great nation, all of its institutions and all that it once stood for, or you are in-league with those forces sent here to cause mistrust and dissension among this organization’s members and associates. Either way my contempt and revulsion for you as Americans holds no bounds. If those who stated that they have lost respect for our efforts and organization or stated that they would discontinue their membership then good riddance to them because they have neither taken the time to study and understand the Constitution and / or are in complete and total contempt of it instead of continuing the fight for it.

        Reply this comment
      • Jerry 10 September, 2015, 14:52

        Stewart, what we are witnessing is the complete breakdown of logical thought and clear thinking. Being in Christian ministry for over a decade, I can see that not only will this breakdown become the ruination of Western Christianity- but it seriously threatens the patriot movement. I wish I had a dollar for every time I had to point out the “genetic” fallacy. I could buy a 80% lower, and possibly the jig to drill it out.

        Reply this comment
      • Harvieux 10 September, 2015, 15:53

        Stewart, When will you come out and tell the truth that you, I, and most likely all who have ever taken a subscribed oath of office that such an oath was/is a total fraud? To prove this I respectfully ask that you produce a document in law that has a title of: “The Constitution of the United States”. I can save you some time because no such document exists on earth. Was this fraud performed purposely so these corporate foreign agent occupiers purporting to be lawful government can possibly use plausible deniability against the fraud perpetrated on the people?

        You keep bringing up due process of law as per the constitution yet fail to mention that these corporate foreign agents purporting to be lawful government are operating under total military rule by presuming all US citizens to be enemy combatants occupying conquered territory under martial rule as per their, the foreign agent occupier’s own words, rules, codes, statutes, and acts that are clearly specified in the War Powers Act of 1933 a.k.a. The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 which can be defined as a supercharger to the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. News Flash: These foreign agent occupier’s purporting to be lawful government do not have to provide US citizens nor those who have contracted to them any due process whatsoever. Sure, they will dog and pony show it to keep the masses thinking justice is in play but you know as well as I and many others know that the game is rigged with them, the foreign agent occupier’s controlling both the referees and the scoreboard.

        I’ve lost count on how many times I have personally written to you in regards to the proper, lawful actions that is and has taken place in West Virginia by asking for your assistance and all I have heard to date was crickets chirping. You even dissed the gentlemen who are the plaintiffs of this case at the recent OKs West Virginia summit by telling them to take their matter up with their Sheriff. News Flash: Sheriffs are foreign agents too! I have true fact evidence that all who have taken the unlawful and fraudulent oath of office are foreign agents and such a designation are not my words, they are their very own words on paper. Please take this and maybe consider performing a legal opinion on the following: Title 5 USC 331, 332, 333 backed up by Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations 92.12 – 92.31 and Title 8 USC, section 1481 – the public official relinquishes his national citizenship and are thus foreign agents as stipulated under Title 22 USC, chapter 11, section 611, loss of national citizenship — Public officials are no longer US Citizens, but rather are foreign agents and must register as such. Let me also provide a despicable example of an oath of office completed by foreign agent Michael Bright of the CA Department of Justice and who happens to be in the same office of Kamala Harris, the purported attorney general of CA. You just can’t make this poop up, folks! See this: http://hudok.info/index.php/oath-relinquished-citizenship/

        I mean after all, how the heck could the purported public officials remain US citizens when such a standing would make themselves be at war with themselves? 😉

        Reply this comment
      • David Hawkins 11 September, 2015, 13:12

        The Constitution was not violated she had her due process when she appealed the decision of the court that she filed and was told she must issue same sex liscenses. Her rights were not violated and she did not obey the courts orders. That results in being sanctioned by the court. She put herself on this position by her own freewill to exercise her religous beliefs. The sad part is you cannot see it and if you try to get in the way I hope they take those that do to jail as well for obstruction charges. Good luck.

        Reply this comment
  17. SM Day 10 September, 2015, 03:34

    Outstanding!

    “Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights.” –Thomas Jefferson [1789]

    Reply this comment
  18. Northernwolf 10 September, 2015, 03:39

    no one that I saw mentioned that the whole idea of a law she broke is not a law as the Surpreme court doesn’t make the laws only Congress can.

    Reply this comment
    • SM Day 10 September, 2015, 04:19

      Somebody still gets it, thanks. The truest defense of the Constitution is proper understanding.

      Reply this comment
      • Stewart Rhodes 10 September, 2015, 08:37

        Oh, we get that too, believe you me. But I’m just trying to get people to see the bedrock, fundamental need for due process. You can tell by some of the comments that that is hard enough without trying to also get them to think about the proper role of the Supreme Court, after they have been living for so many generations under a Court that acts as if the Constitution really is merely whatever the judges say it is, and judges that don’t bother with waiting for Congress to pass legislation..

        Reply this comment
        • elrush 10 September, 2015, 18:42

          Due process, you mean like a court hearing before a judge during which you or your counsel is permitted to set forth your arguments why you should be permitted to defy a court order? Due process, like a hearing during which you tell the Court that you intend to continue to defy the court’s order, in response to which the GW Bush appointed conservative federal judge court finds you in contempt and orders you jailed even though the plaintiffs did not request incarceration, because that judge believed you when you said you would continue to break the law? That kind of due process? Or some other kind of due process?

          Reply this comment
    • Vintac 10 September, 2015, 08:27

      The Supreme Court made no laws regarding gay marriage, they simply ruled that it is illegal for States to outlaw gay marriage as it infringes upon the Constitutional rights of (gay) Americans. The same Constitutional rights this organization is sworn to uphold. Things were done properly, except for the clerk putting her personal issues above her lawful duty. The US Constitution trumps Kentucky laws.

      Reply this comment
    • Dave 11 September, 2015, 22:35

      Actually, she violated the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. While acting as a agent of the Government, she supported the establishment of a religion, which is very clearly a breach of the US Constitution.

      Reply this comment
  19. marlene 10 September, 2015, 03:48

    God bless you, Oath Keepers, If congress won’t remove such a sitting judge who has violated his oath of office and overreach his judicial authority, and the governors won’t do it, and the state legislators won’t to it, then YOU are our last frontier. Kay Davis was arrested without “due process of law.” She had every right to uphold and enforce the laws of Kentucky and the fed’l gov’t had no right to remove her from her post for allegedly violating a court opinion that is NOT a fed’l statute, much less a supreme law. Art I. The 14th Amendment is about immigration and naturalization, and has nothing to do whatsoever with marriage or marriage licenses, so for the High Court to use the 14th to define marriage rights in America is a blatant violation of the meaning and intent of the 14th. No court has any constitutional authority over marriage at all. The five attorneys hired by the government made up a phony marriage “right” right, but failed miserably in proving that the court met any of the terms and conditions for even hearing such cases. An unconstitutional ruling is invalid and void on its face. Unconstitutional acts of the fed’l gov’t do not enjoy “supremacy” or even the force of law. Selective enforcement of these unconstitutional “laws” is also tyranny – an act of TREASON. Cruz is an ivy league lawyer AND a member of congress and should have taken on this case from a legal perspective – but he did NOT – because he doesn’t care one whit, despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary.

    Reply this comment
    • Dave 11 September, 2015, 22:42

      As elrush said:

      Due process, you mean like a court hearing before a judge during which you or your counsel is permitted to set forth your arguments why you should be permitted to defy a court order? Due process, like a hearing during which you tell the Court that you intend to continue to defy the court’s order, in response to which the GW Bush appointed conservative federal judge court finds you in contempt and orders you jailed even though the plaintiffs did not request incarceration, because that judge believed you when you said you would continue to break the law? That kind of due process? Or some other kind of due process?

      And here’s my own bit:
      You just want to use the US Government to enact your religious laws, even though that’s clearly in violation of the US Constitution.

      Reply this comment
  20. henrycat 10 September, 2015, 03:54

    Mrs. Davis has no “rights” when it comes to this matter….. think about this for a minute……Mrs. Davis is an elected official. Elected Officials carry out their duties according to the law. The Supreme Court of the United States ( there is no higher legal authority ) made a decision on this issue and was up to Mrs. Davis to carry out the mandate, which was to issue marriage licenses, yes even to gays. Before you go off on me, I am FOR traditional marriage and AGAINST gay marriage. However, it is not up to Mrs. Davis to interpret the law for herself or whatever higher power or for any of her constituents. Should she exercise her opinion and influence, she, herself is breaking the law. The law is the law…. if you don’t like it, change it…..Mrs. Davis, as an elected official is not allowed to deviate from the law and foist her opinions on anyone else. If all elected officials were to do this, it would be known as anarchy, which affects the masses by the few. And yes, our DIVIDER IN CHIEF has done this through executive orders….. One anarchist is enough and he will soon be gone.

    The upshot is….. Mrs. Davis, as an elected official wanted to control others as well as her fate, while claiming that she is exercising “God’s Law.” She wanted control and she had it, with respect to her own fate. She could have made decisions that could have been favorable for everyone, including resigning her position or having a subordinate issue licenses. But instead she chose to defy a LAWFUL court order and go to jail. No sympathy here. She WAS in control of her fate…..

    Think about this. If her rebellion is ok for this matter, could she go a step further and have applicants take a Morals test, with the stipulation that she had to approve the results???? She and her supporters, including Mike Huckabee are all wet and if Mike wants to go to jail on her behalf, he is too stupid to run for President.

    Remember, the law is the law, and this was a LAWFUL court order by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no higher civil authority. And one more thing, if you like this type of anarchy, just wait until your local Muslims want to impose their beliefs on you and yours….. enjoy your Sharia. God has nothing to do with this decision….. do the homework. Civil law is for all citizens of the United States of America.

    p.s. She may have been in her position before the Court decision, but too damn bad…. How do you think it would go over if you were caught running a red light and told the officer that you hadn’t been by this way for a couple of years and there was no light in place then?????

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 10 September, 2015, 08:51

      your point is well taken about a situation where Muslims in office could refuse to take actions in their job that they claim violates their religion. . A hypothetical example would be where a Muslim man working at DMV refuses to issue drivers licenses to women because he feels it is against the will of Allah. I am sure none of our readers would support THAT exercise of conscience on the job (setting aside the fact that in Kentucky, the state constitution defined marriage as being between a man and a woman). So yes, there are real potential problems that are possible with public officials conducting their jobs according to their religious convictions (but see that Kentucky constitutional provision, which changes that equation a bit). .

      But what about her right to due process? Even if you are correct in all you say, what is the proper method of correcting her? As I said in response to another comment:

      Whatever you think of her actions, she has a right to due process.

      The state could impeach her and remove her. The state of Kentucky could even possibly prosecute her for a state crime. And the Feds could possibly prosecute her for a federal offense. At least then she would get a jury trial, and yet none of that is happening? Why? Because they don’t have to do any of that since the judge just took it upon himself to A. create a crime. B. Decide the proper sentence of indefinite detention till she submits, and C. Find her guilty and sentence her. . All on his own. Doesn’t that bother you? Do you want to live in a nation where any judge, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, can just do that to state and local elected officials, or potentially to any of us? No charge listed. No defined crime with the elements of that crime posted. No requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of her peers, rather than just the judge himself. No chance for a jury to nullify and refuse to convict, which is one of the core purposes of a jury.

      If she is guilty of a crime, prosecute her! If she is committing malfeasance in her duties, or even violating her oath, as you say, then impeach her and remove her from office. But do those things in the constitutional ways that are already in existence. Don’t create some vast and unlimited power of a judge to just do it all himself. It is not his place, and not his power. That power belongs to the people alone.

      We need to defend the due process rights of everyone, and anyone, whether you agree with their views or actions or not, and regardless of what they are accused of doing. That doesn’t make it right to just have a judge “decree” that she be thrown in the slammer indefinitely.

      And for those in love with the contempt power, you should know that in matters of criminal contempt, where the sentence is longer than six months, the accused has a right to a JURY TRIAL. And that is recognized by even the current crop of federal judges.– Stewart

      Reply this comment
      • henrycat 10 September, 2015, 15:02

        Sorry, but she got her due process……. She stood in front of a Federal Judge and was told that if she stood by her decision, she would be in contempt of court. She chose to defy the Supreme Court decision and lawful court order. She could have exercised alternatives, but chose to shoot herself in the foot. There is a separation of church and state issue here that she could have resolved instead of going to jail. No Sale…….

        Reply this comment
      • Dave 11 September, 2015, 22:09

        She received due process. She was sued for not performing her duties as defined by the state. Duties she was ordered to perform by the Governor of Kentucky. Duties she also prevented her subordinates from carrying out. She lost that case and all appeals. The result of that lawsuit was to be ordered to perform her duties. She again refused, and was held in contempt of court for violating that court order. She had her day in court. You are willing to violate your oath to the Constitution because of your religious beliefs.

        Reply this comment
  21. Obbop 10 September, 2015, 04:01

    There is risk of various types to depart from the main Oath Keeper reason for existing: The Ten Orders We Will Not Obey.

    It might behoove OK leadership to start a separate organization to handle affairs venturing away from OK’s raison d’etre.

    Just one fellow’s opinion but I believe it is sound advice.

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 10 September, 2015, 07:57

      One of our Ten orders deals directly with violation of the right to jury trial, and the whole list is merely a reflection of our Bill of Rights, which are part of the Constitution we swore an oath to defend. So, exactly how is defending the right to jury trial, which is part of the Constitution, “off mission”? Go read our mission statement in our bylaws. It is simply to defend the Constitution, and that was our oath, so that is what we must do, and what we will do, and whether you, we, or anyone else happens to like the particular person or their views. We MUST defend the due process rights of everyone, and there is no more important due process right than to be free from arbitrary detention, and that is prevented by the constitutional requirements of grand jury indictment and jury trial. What is more worthy of being defended? You do know that denial of jury trial was among the grievances against the King listed in the Declaration of Independence, that justified our forefathers taking up arms, don’t you? – Stewart

      Reply this comment
      • Jayna50 10 September, 2015, 09:10

        Kim Davis violated a judicial order. As a result, she was held in contempt of court, a perfectly lawful and constitutional order. It is amazing to me how people who violate the rights of people of any sex to get married complain about how they are victims and that their right to discriminate against gay people violate their rights and that they are victims. You will never see Kim Davis refusing to issue a divorce decree certificate, something that is condemned in the bible. This makes her a bigot. By backing this bigot, you paint yourself into a really bad picture.

        Reply this comment
        • andy 10 September, 2015, 11:37

          So.. you’re ok living in a country that has laws based on Judicial orders and not legislatively enacted laws voted on by people who themselves are voted on. Move to china or russia, maybe even saudi arabia. You’ll be much happier there. There was no law that the woman was bound to obey. Oh, btw, sure don’t want to be in your shoes when you tell God he is a bigot on the day of Judgement.

          Reply this comment
          • sp 10 September, 2015, 17:43

            The Supreme Court ruled that gays have a constitutional right to get married. By refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays, she is violating their constitutional rights.
            Either you are for equal protection under the law and for all people having their constitutional rights protected or you are not .

          • Danb1a 10 September, 2015, 17:56

            Contempt laws are legislative, as there is also a contempt of Congress law. This laws are in place to compel people to follow our three branches of government. This woman defied a lawful order and was told that there would be consequences. She ignored those. And in doing do, she stated she was ready for those consequences. The judge was well within his rights to hold her in contempt. Your religious beliefs DO NOT trump my rights, and she was not only holding those people who came in for a license hostage, she was also holding her co-workers hostage with her religious views. And no matter what your leader may say, if she refuses to follow the law, she will go back to jail, as it should be. Those are the laws. We all need to follow them or then it will be anarchy. Pretty easy to understand.

        • farmrdave 10 September, 2015, 16:07

          Maybe she is a bigot, I have no idea and do not care. What is wrong here is a court ordering a person to perform a task and placing them in jail when they refuse. In a dictatorship that would be the law. In our country every person is entitled to due process of law. This matter is not about the clerks actions, it is about the illegal actions of the court. Please consider this.

          Reply this comment
      • Calvin John, Indiana OK 10 September, 2015, 09:37

        PREACH it, brother! God bless you!

        I firmly believe it’s NOT for us to pick and choose which violations of the Constitution to make an issue. An attack on ANY part of the Constitution is an act of rebellion against it all.

        Reply this comment
      • USA Constitutionalist 10 September, 2015, 13:36

        Thank you Stewart Rhodes & all Oath Keepers!! You are modern day Sons of Liberty. Now I understand this issue better. We must be ever vigilant. Your organization is truly leading the way. I am grateful for you and all you are doing. Sincerely from a grandmother in Alabama.

        Reply this comment
      • henrycat 10 September, 2015, 14:48

        Mrs. Davis has no “rights” when it comes to this matter….. think about this for a minute……Mrs. Davis is an elected official. Elected Officials carry out their duties according to the law. The Supreme Court of the United States ( there is no higher legal authority ) made a decision on this issue and was up to Mrs. Davis to carry out the mandate, which was to issue marriage licenses, yes even to gays. Before you go off on me, I am FOR traditional marriage and AGAINST gay marriage. However, it is not up to Mrs. Davis to interpret the law for herself or whatever higher power or for any of her constituents. Should she exercise her opinion and influence, she, herself is breaking the law. The law is the law…. if you don’t like it, change it…..Mrs. Davis, as an elected official is not allowed to deviate from the law and foist her opinions on anyone else. If all elected officials were to do this, it would be known as anarchy, which affects the masses by the few. And yes, our DIVIDER IN CHIEF has done this through executive orders….. One anarchist is enough and he will soon be gone.

        The upshot is….. Mrs. Davis, as an elected official wanted to control others as well as her fate, while claiming that she is exercising “God’s Law.” She wanted control and she had it, with respect to her own fate. She could have made decisions that could have been favorable for everyone, including resigning her position or having a subordinate issue licenses. But instead she chose to defy a LAWFUL court order and go to jail. No sympathy here. She WAS in control of her fate…..

        And further,f her rebellion is ok for this matter, could she go a step further and have applicants take a Morals test, with the stipulation that she had to approve the results???? She and her supporters, including Mike Huckabee are all wet and if Mike wants to go to jail on her behalf, he is too stupid to run for President.

        Remember, the law is the law, and this was a LAWFUL court order by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no higher civil authority. And one more thing, if you like this type of anarchy, just wait until your local Muslims want to impose their beliefs on you and yours….. enjoy your Sharia. God has nothing to do with this decision….. do the homework. Civil law is for all citizens of the United States of America.

        p.s. She may have been in her position before the Court decision, but too damn bad…. How do you think it would go over if you were caught running a red light and told the officer that you hadn’t been by this way for a couple of years and there was no light in place then?????

        Reply this comment
      • Mike 11 September, 2015, 14:04

        I’m on board with the idea of defending due process rights, but this argument seems like a stretch. From her attorneys own appeal, quoting the Supreme Court, in regards to whether imprisonment is criminal or civil, it is “punitive and criminal if it is imposed retrospectively for a ‘completed act of disobedience,’ such that the contemnor cannot avoid or abbreviate the confinement through later compliance.” Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 828-29 (citation omitted)).”

        Because it was ordered that her compliance, or that of her subordinates, would end her detainment, this was seemingly a case where civil due process rights should apply, not criminal due process rights. Therefore, it seems that there was no creation of a “crime.”

        Also, her appeal never had a chance to be heard, because she was already released as her subordinates complied with law as ordered and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Her appeal may have resulted in her release, and her due process rights (as it applies to civil law) may have been found to have been violated.

        When the totality of the evidence is weighed it seems like the wrong case to be stirring up passions.

        Reply this comment
    • Jayna50 10 September, 2015, 09:06

      You are absolutely right

      Reply this comment
  22. patriotic american 10 September, 2015, 04:32

    Oath keepers, our local sheriff, and every one of us educating our children, family and friends is our only hope. The good news is, if we awaken others and simply refuse to take the bait, we refuse to accept the propaganda, we will win this war. We need to instill critical thinking amongst our neighbors and friends that they too stand up.

    Reply this comment
    • Harvieux 10 September, 2015, 05:15

      patriotic american, I hear you loud and clear and agree with you. May I assist you with what many believe to be the answer to your request? Check into this site: http://www.hudok.info Here you will have a turn key process to right the listing ship of your purported state’s government fiasco. I won’t go further into this topic here on this venue however, feel free to contact me via email at: wrmltd@pacbell.net and I would be glad to answer any questions you may have and if I can’t answer them, I can get the correct answer for you.

      Reply this comment
  23. Harvieux 10 September, 2015, 04:47

    Here is how I think the title to this blog should read based on what I believe to be facts:

    “Oath Keepers Offers Kim Davis Protection From Further Imprisonment by Judge even though Kim Davis breached her corporate contract yet, when a plaintiff from West Virginia personally approached the highest in the leadership of the Oath Keepers and asked him for their assistance in protecting and possibly assisting in providing enforcement for a lawful action that put the whole state of West Virginia’s purported government in total default and dishonor, this leadership person told them to contact the local Sheriff” Call me confused! “roll eyes”

    Reply this comment
    • Soonerman 11 September, 2015, 01:00

      It wasn’t talked about on conservative radio.
      A little secret….these guys THINK they are not but, indeed, they are puppets on a string.

      Again, all you need to do is look at the TOTALY absence of ANY “OATH KEEPER” action in the various land grabs by the government on behalf of foreign powers like TransCanada.
      You see, on the AM radio shows that they listen to, this is not talked about. Indeed, they are “programmed” to support these TRUE violations of people’s constitutional rights.

      Reply this comment
  24. windracer 10 September, 2015, 04:53

    Since when was Marriage ever a “right” enumerated in the U,S Constitution? I always thought it was an
    Institution Administered by the States under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has Legislated
    from the Bench and what we are seeing down in Kentucky is the Rightful Response to the Contempt too
    many of our elected representatives have displayed for the Constitution – You Know the same Law of the
    Land that they Swore a Solemn Oath to Uphold .

    Reply this comment
    • Soonerman 11 September, 2015, 01:02

      So, Loving vs. Virginia is invalid and, in said states, all interracial marriages are illegal?

      Good lord, we need a TRUE “Oath Keepers”. One that recognizes and desires to protect the rights and liberties of ALL US CITIZENS, not just the ones that fit their political demographic.

      Reply this comment
  25. Dennis.W. 10 September, 2015, 05:08

    Early editions of Black’s Law Dictionary defined a “Marriage License” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to inter-marry.”

    “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

    Realizing there was money to be made, the government decided to require all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In doing so, the government turned a right into a privilege.

    Yet, we know a right can’t be taxed. Take labor and earnings for example, where the courts have repeatedly held,

    “Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed.”

    “Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege.” Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland (1960)

    “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges …” F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department Legislative draftsman. March, 27 1943 Page 2580

    The FEDERAL income tax is an “excise” tax that is applicable to income connected with FEDERAL privilege. If there is no privilege involved, there is no tax involved. It has been this way since the nation was founded.

    The institution of marriage is a religious act that existed long before government. It is an act defined and recognized by religion, not government. To tax as privilege a religious act, or redefine the religious act of marriage is absurd. The government should mind its own business and stick to the enumerated powers given to it by the people in the Constitution.

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 10 September, 2015, 08:04

      I agree with you 100%. Government should get out of marriage and leave it to the conscience of the people getting married and their chosen church. It is a spiritual and religious institution, and nothing to do with government. You are spot on. And it is ironic that so many on the left keep screaming about separation of church and state and yet they don’t work to actually get government out of marriage. That would solve a whole tangle of problems.

      However, in this case, what we are worried about is the use of the contempt power as a magic wand and scepter of power by the judge to punish without having to bother with a jury trial. And the general tendency of the courts to legislate from the bench and rule as if they were an unlimited oligarchy for life, which is pretty much what they have become. “The least dangerous branch” my ass. – Stewart

      Reply this comment
      • Penni B 10 September, 2015, 09:32

        Least dangerous? I agree. Patrick Henry had the foresight to see the problems with the Constitution, and spelled them out in his speech to the Virginia Convention. You may disagree with his reasoning on why the Supreme Court was a problem, but he was right that it is.

        http://popularliberty.com/comment/31286#comment-31286

        Reply this comment
      • Cal 10 September, 2015, 14:34

        “The least dangerous branch” my ass.

        Made me smile to read that, and I agree.

        My question is, where does Oathkeepers stand on the “Good Behaviour” requirement to be followed for judges to be ALLOWED to retain their position?

        US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

        I personally believe that the US Constitution sets up the description of what is “Good Behaviour” through its assignment of judicial duties and to take and KEEP the Oaths.

        Basically that when the US Constitution assigns what all judges, state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position, they are also the requirements they MUST keep in order to remain in “Good Behaviour”. The list is not long, basically the judges are:

        — Required to take, and keep an Oath(s), or a combined Oath.
        — Required to “support and defend” the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it before the duties of the office they occupy.
        — Required to carry out the enumerated duties assigned to the judicial branch by the US Constitution in a constitutional manner.

        I believe that is the list of things that must be followed for “Good Behaviour” actions for all judges.

        Why do I believe that? Because the judicial was supposed to be independent of both the executive, the legislative branches and the states; not under their “thumb”. If they were the ones making the list of what would be required of those who serve within the judicial branch they would then have much power over that branch.

        Also, the “Good Behaviour” is a case for the people themselves to REMOVE bad judges. There is proof of this within our own history. That there must be a trial with a jury of their peers (and NO, I am not saying other judges as that is a position, not a person) per the Fifth Amendment, after a (real) Grand Jury investigation by the people into the cases of that judge:

        “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,…”

        “Thus, CITIZENS have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

        *1787 Northwest Ordinance granted territorial judges good behavior tenure, and there was no legislative or executives who were overseeing the removal, it was our court system and a jury trial.

        The 1790 Crimes Act which provided that a judge convicted of taking a bribe would, by virtue of the conviction, be “forever . . . disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States.” That conviction would deprive the judge of life tenure of the office being occupied. That fell under the “Good Behaviour” tenure which was carried out by the people through a jury trial.

        Is it not time we start enforcing lawfully the US Constitution regarding judges which have been doing much harm to our nation? Is this not a judge we must first try to educate as to the lawful duties required by the position that is being occupied; and if that is rejected move to a Grand Jury investigation and, if enough evidence is gathered, a prosecution and removal if found guilty?

        Reply this comment
  26. Randall 10 September, 2015, 05:51

    I’m with Harvieux (10 September, 2015, 04:47) on this one. It seems to me, the “leadership” of this org is deliberately ignoring core issues…
    That is why I haven’t called Stew in years.

    Reply this comment
    • Calvin John, Indiana OK 10 September, 2015, 09:54

      Randall, here are the Constitutional issues here:

      1) The Feds have NO Constitutional authority to define marriage; that power is delegated to the States (Art. 1, Sec. 8);
      2) Even if it did so delegate, ALL legislative powers are vested in Congress, NOT the Courts ( Article 1, Section 1)
      3) Kim Davis violated no Oath; SCOTUS did. In fact, she CARRIED OUT her Oath to defend the Kentucky Constitution, which was amended by an overwhelming majority NOT to recognise same-sex marriage.

      Here’s an exercise for you: Read and reread Article1 Section 3 until you find where the Constitution delegates the Courts final interpretive authority over the Constitution and the authority to regularly strike down Acts of Congress and State law as “unconstitutional”.

      When you find it, then get back to me on this forum and enlighten me, because I can’t!

      Reply this comment
      • Liberty Sanders 10 September, 2015, 17:00

        The Feds don’t define marriage nor are they attempting to. They are requiring that the states obey the constitutional mandate concerning equal protection under the law, which they HAVE a right to do.

        Kim Davis did violate her oath of office by willfully failing to perform her duties. Citizens who were being deprived of vital government services by her went to court for relief and the judge granted it, and rightfully so.

        Reply this comment
    • Cal 10 September, 2015, 14:47

      ” the “leadership” of this org is deliberately ignoring core issues…”

      Would you define “core issues” for me here on this forum? Because I believe that the US Constitution, defense and support of it is the core issue.

      If we are agreeing on the core issues, then where are they (OK) ignoring them? IS it actually that you disagree on the core issue, or that you disagree with how to go about supporting and protecting it?

      Because I also disagree with actions taken or not taken many times (at times OK’s actions are MUCH better then I thought must be done), but I cannot fault that they do KEEP their Oath and they do educate as this organization was created to do so I do not hold my opinion on what must be done against the decision they make and follow through with.

      I support what they do here and understand that they do not make their decisions in “a vacuum”, but consult those they consider experienced before taking action – as they should.

      Here they are acting appropriately in defending all of our right to a constitutional trial for LAWFUL charges made as opposed to being grabbed off the streets, or from our homes (through breaking and entering if with no lawful warrant) disguised as a “power” delegated.

      We must defend those we disagree with as well as those we agree with or we all lose. In my opinion they ARE doing so as they should.

      Reply this comment
  27. OPFORjim 10 September, 2015, 07:03

    Demanding that our leaders abide by their oaths to the Constitution… I can get behind. The Clerk has violated her oath… you are on the wrong side of this.

    Stick to “unnecessary use of force” and “due process” issues. Stay out of the business of the courts. You still haven’t kept your promise to arm the good citizens of Ferguson… keep your focus. You are losing the hearts and minds.

    Reply this comment
    • Stewart Rhodes 10 September, 2015, 08:07

      This is a due process issue. Why can’t you see that? Because you don’t like here view doesn’t change the abuse of power by this judge. If you think she has violated her oath, then the remedy is to impeach her, or charge her with a crime, not to let a judge waive his magic wand.

      As for Ferguson, that is still on track.

      As for hearts and minds, we do what is right, not what is popular. I didn’t start this org to win a popularity contest. – Stewart

      Reply this comment
      • OPFORjim 10 September, 2015, 08:40

        You’re up late Mr. President! Thanks for the response. Any word on a new chapter leader for New Mexico? We have many issues here in Albuquerque and no organization. (Do the right thing in Ferguson and I’ll eagerly become a dues paying member).

        As a reasonable and precautious man, I am constantly disappointed (in the course of due diligence) to find most of the libertarian minded media sources (online) are cynical, infiltrated or worse, honeypots for law enforcement, seeking to root out “domestic terrorists”.

        I take exception to the idea this is not a “popularity contest”. Your org is THE THREAT to the enemies of the Constitution. Mainstream media, SPLC and every governmental alphabet is out to ruin your image and credibility. Please don’t give them the opportunity. Your message, is sound, when articulated and hard to argue against. Preventing naked aggression (with firearms) is your mandate. Seek out any and all interview opportunities in the press/media. You will lose more support than you gain by becoming the “ANTI-Government, Pro-religious racial bigots” they accuse you of. You know this is true, as you make substantial effort, to weed out the nuts and haters. If you lose the goodwill, of men like me, you will become an Org of one… and who does that benefit? Keep it secular, keep it non-partisan, keep it lawful.

        HooAhh !??

        Reply this comment
        • Cal 10 September, 2015, 15:07

          “Your org is THE THREAT to the enemies of the Constitution. Mainstream media, SPLC and every governmental alphabet is out to ruin your image and credibility.”

          That tells you that the choices made are good ones as those organizations are TREASONOUS in intent and action against the American people and the US Constitution. Oathkeepers MUST support and defend the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it whenever it can (as is all Oathtakers required to do) as well as educate those who are ignorant – and they are many – of the Oath and its seriousness and LAWFUL responsibilities when taken.

          I, myself agree with what the clerk did by suspending ALL marriages (equality) and keeping her state Oath as required until a LAWFUL decision was made to guide her actions by the LEGISLATIVE branch of that state; and in this case there is no DELEGATED general (federal) jurisdiction (authority) to change that states law. That is a usurpation and actual Treason committed by those who serve within the general government and *Terrorism against the Clerk and the American people when carried out by state toadys.

          You might want to think about this; The Preamble to the US Constitution; starts with:
          “We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution”,
          and consider that by those words it is saying that “We the People” are the source of any and all legal status of the state and federal governments. “We” created them for specific purposes, delegated powers and authority that are PUT INTO WRITING within documents called the US Constitution and each state Constitution.

          This was NOT done to let those that serve within our governments destroy our lives, control us, spy on us, track us, or murder us, take our weapons, stop our lawful right to jury trials, destroy the Militia, re-educate our children, use propaganda on us, insert the people those who want to destroy our nation in as candidates, etc.

          Basically all public officials – state and federal representatives, state and federal law enforcement, state and federal judges, the multitude of state and federal bureaucracies – are called “public servants” for a reason – they are literally our hirelings, and many are “temporary workers” or “seasonal” – long seasons I admit; and it matters not if they were elected, hired, contracted, etc they have DELEGATED duties that are REQUIRED to be performed, and anything NOT listed within the Constitutions – US or state – is NOT their duty, but OURS. Those that SERVE WITHIN our governments – state and general – are forbidden to do those things not put into writing.

          Oathkeeprs will lose and gain support as they go along as peoples feelings dictate. Some will come back, some will stay gone. That is the right of all people.

          Oathkeepers are NOT “… “ANTI-Government, Pro-religious racial bigots”… but they are ANTI people who serve within our governments and distort and pervert the US Constitution regardless of race, etc and THAT is how it should be.

          *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

          Reply this comment
      • Liberty Sanders 10 September, 2015, 16:43

        Stewart, this is NOT a due process issue. This woman is a sworn public official who was willfully refusing to perform her duty. When she was ORDERED to do so, which this judge had every legal right in the world to do, she refused to obey and continued holding an entire county of citizens hostage. This is NOT something in which we should be involved.

        And just how do you plan on having Oathkeepers “protect” this woman? When she defies the court again are Oathkeepers going to get in a gun battle with the US Marshals who come for her?

        Reply this comment
  28. OPFORjim 10 September, 2015, 07:19

    What if she denied a business license to a seafood restaurant, because she had a religious objection to shellfish? What if she denied a business license for a company open on the Sabbath? What if she denied a business license to a “new age bookstore” selling “graven images”?

    She hasn’t and she won’t… she picks and chooses which of “God’s Laws” she will obey. She is by definition a Hypocrite. This is exactly the soft of arbitrary injustice you claim to defend against. A woman with as many marriages as she has can be assumed to have committed adultery. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. “Separation of Church and State”.

    Reply this comment
  29. Vintac 10 September, 2015, 07:47

    I’ve been fighting an uphill battle on social media to get folks to see us as something other than instigators, racists, and inflammatory gun nuts, and this decision is not going to help me win that fight.

    She was a government functionary who refused to do her job serving the American people and was served a court order for her dereliction of duty to either do what the tax payers pay her for or else. She made her decision. This is not one of those orders that we should not obey – it’s a purely social issue and she is on the wrong side of the law with this one. She should obey! Protecting her puts us on the wrong side of the law as well is we interfere with the arresting officers duties.

    Contempt of court for violating a federal law (one the American people overwhelmingly support) and refusing to do your duty as a public servant is absolutely a good reason to send someone to jail. If I refused to do my duty while serving I could have been shot for it.

    Contempt of court for a government functionary refusing to do the duty the tax payers pay them for is absolutely acceptable and legal, especially when that duty is written law. Her opinions mattered during the voting phase, where we all have a voice, but now that gay marriage is legal, her choice is to either to continue as a public servant, doing her duty and serving the interests of the American people as she is paid to do, or step aside because of her beliefs. Defending her is wrong.

    If a Christian becomes a solider (which happens all the time) they can’t choose to not kill because one of the commandments says they shouldn’t. They damn sure wouldn’t continue to collect a paycheck if they refuse to do their lawful duties. She is a public servant, pure and simple, and she needs to do her duty or step aside and let someone else in who will actually do the job.

    Just because there is an issue going on in the media does not mean we Oath Keepers need to jump in and associate our name with it. Pick your battles.

    Reply this comment
  30. OPFORjim 10 September, 2015, 07:57

    The bible reads like a law book. The two passages commonly cited as anti-gay:

    Romans says GOD MADE THE GAYS for being idolaters. I’ll say it again HE MADE THEM THAT WAY.

    Corinthians says GOD will do the punishing in the afterlife. NOWHERE does it say that a Christian should judge a non-Christian. Jesus DIED for their sins… right? Additionally, GOD’s commandment is to RETREAT from the world, and concern yourself only with the acts of fellow Christians. If she feels strongly, by GOD’s law she must quit her job.

    Corinthians 5
    “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, 10 not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. 11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. 12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? 13 God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.””

    Romans 1.26 ” God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts[o] for the mutual degradation of their bodies. […] Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions.”
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=NABRE

    Corinthians 6.9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes[d] nor sodomites 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=NABRE

    Reply this comment
  31. Rickis 10 September, 2015, 11:42

    I am in agreement that this Judge had no right to have Kim Davis put in jail for refusing wedding licenses due to her enforcing a Higher Powers law that is forever etched in stone. Our country has been extremely damaged and affected negatively by this type of Governing that has plagued our Nations Constitution, Bill Of Rights and Declaration Of Independence. Sadly to say, the only real way to pin the law makers in Kentucky to the wall for justice protocols in these type of incidents is to sue them big time for the obvious. Whether or not Kim Davis’s team wins any monetary amount or not, the absolute exposure of this County, Sitting Governor and State Legislature’s allowability of any elected Judge to be Judge , Jury and Executioner in such an incident that will now be nationally exposed. This kind of Governmental embarrassment will surely resonate Kentucky’s voters to second guess the political seats come voting time!

    Hopefully when this Commie Socialist Regime ran from abroad ends in 2016 and is replaced by a Constitution, Bill Of Rights and Declaration Of Independence believing administration, Obama Care and Same sex Marriage laws should be repealed and cleaning house of Commie Socialist Congressman and Senators that have done nothing for this Countries Betterment at all!

    Reply this comment
  32. Bobbo 10 September, 2015, 12:11

    Thanks to you guys for having the guts & then following through! You know, on the one hand I am somewhat skeptical of your action here. I wonder if this action could be a touchstone into violence by some goofs (I’m referring to the cowardly & mindless attacks on police officers currently happening) or might it be termed vigilanteism? On the other hand, there is definite overreach by government, particularly @ federal level! So many of this country’s elected officials are nothing but corrupt & self promoting. Pls consider the following: 4 cabinet positions existed (war, justice, treasury & state) during Washington’s administration, now there are over 20…..this amounts to excessive & abusive regulation (growing into iron fisted rule!). Waves of legal & illegal immigrants are welcomed here by the same corrupt politicians, judges & bunglecrats- because they can be counted on to vote for more of the same (i.e., handouts). During times of strife, different ethnicities in same geographical areas will square off,inviting more iron fisted rule (vs governing). Damn the CFR & bring back HCUA! Lastly, my opinion is that many of the violent actions portrayed as random by individual ‘wackjobs’ are being promoted by the red menace, investigation into which by fed gov is not PC. Looking @ so much of the ‘news’, has not MSM become become ‘TASS/USA’ w/a 24/7 Potemkin agenda? Thanks for your efforts!

    Reply this comment
  33. Raviv 10 September, 2015, 12:22

    This group has strayed so far from its original purpose. It has gone from being an apolitical protector of those persecuted for following their oaths to highly political right wing activists.
    It’s being held in contempt. It’s normal. Nothing odd. If I refused to do my job despite a court order AND told my deputies not to either, I would be fired. If I were elected, could not be fired and refused to vacate my position, I would be in contempt of the court order. It’s logical.
    In the beginning, Oath Keepers stepped in only when it was a clear cut case of people being punished for doing the right thing and sticking to their oaths despite pressure to make them do wrong to the public. Now it’s just a bunch of guys sitting around, waiting for an excuse to brandish their assault rifles and attorneys. It really is pathetic.

    Reply this comment
  34. crazy joe 10 September, 2015, 12:28

    Keep up the good work Stewart . I believe the work you are doing with the Oathkeepers we have to save our country I’m a 3% I agree every thing the Oath keepers are doing God Bless all of you..

    Reply this comment
  35. lpmoe 10 September, 2015, 12:31

    Constitution: Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    The Law of the Land…passed by Congress in 1996
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396

    No court has the authorization to change any law…”All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”.

    Based on this information, Kentucky Clerk, Kimberly Davis was put in jail for obeying both God’s law and our Constitutional law?

    Reply this comment
  36. Electric Cowboy 10 September, 2015, 12:32

    At the show cause hearing, the judge asks: “Why can I not put you in jail.” Answer: The Supreme Court declared in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) a “sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those opposition stems from the registrant’s moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and these beliefs are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.
    I have determined, by reading the Supreme Court decisions that “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 at page 491.
    What law did Davis break? She was elected by the citizens of Kentucky. She was doing her job (under the 10th Amendment).

    Reply this comment
  37. electra89 10 September, 2015, 13:39

    Is it not the duty of the Rowan County Sheriff who is elected by the people and the highest law enforcement entity in the County to defend and protect the residents of the County from Federal over-reach by these Marshall’ from The District of Columbia? If my memory is correct wasn’t there a recent incident where a Sheriff protected a Veteran from a VA gun grab attempt?

    Reply this comment
  38. ken 10 September, 2015, 14:10

    It is time to take the dictators DOWN.
    We should all back our people who stand against these evil laws.
    This is a good lady who is right.
    Thank you Brother for the stand,

    Reply this comment
  39. jif6360 10 September, 2015, 14:39

    This is simple, she should have been fired for not keeping her oath. Then she could have challenged that dismissal in court. The real problem is the judges are not require to follow the rules of law. The judges in my state violated my 1, 5, 7, and 14th Amendment rights. I received no answer just legal fees against me. http://www.judicialimmunitynecessaryevil.com/petition.html

    Reply this comment
  40. Ann 10 September, 2015, 14:39

    I have few questions= since when does supreme court makes laws? Don’t they know constitution?
    Since when do we persecute Christians in this country? All judges that don’t follow natural God’s laws should be removed from their positions by people.

    Reply this comment
  41. Brian 10 September, 2015, 14:45

    This is about the overreach of power and the absolute right of due process.
    I find it revealing the threats of resignation.

    I reckon I can understand exactly the position John Adams found himself in.

    I support this entirely.

    Reply this comment
  42. Citizen John 10 September, 2015, 14:49

    The shocking thing to me is the contrast of this lawless government under Obama vs what the government did to Ms Kim Davis, right or wrong on her part. Obama’s government rolled over her like a M1A2 Abrams tank would roll over me. Obama’s “Fast and Furious” illegal gun running has killed hundreds and will continue to kill innocents for the next 50 years, no body in government indicted. It goes on and on with this administration. Ms Davis arrest and imprisonment was a message from Obama the “Supreme Leader”, don’t SCREW with me !
    Thanks to those who have pointed out this atrocious OVER REACH by Obama.
    CJ

    Reply this comment
  43. Sarge 10 September, 2015, 16:30

    From Appleseed newsletter

    Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political philosopher who traveled throughout the United States in the 1830s. He wanted to know why the result of the American Revolution was so peaceful and successful, in contrast to the problematic society in France following their Revolution. In his most famous book, Democracy in America, published in 1835, Tocqueville remarked that while the Americans of the 1830s were not as cultured or artistic minded as Europeans, nearly everyone was literate, knowledgeable and active in matters of politics and public affairs. Later in the book he warned us what could happen if we were to lose that happy aspect of our national personality:

    “I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country…

    “Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government labors; but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits…

    “They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives [men] a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians…By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again…

    “Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated…It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.”

    Tocqueville wrote that in the 1830s, and where are we now? Apathy, passivity, and ignorance are our greatest enemies. Not only in election seasons, but in the continual conduct of our society’s affairs, every one of us should be active participants in our government in order to protect our freedom.

    Forget her views. Her being jailed was illegal. I agree. No one refused to obey this judges illegal order. This illegal order is being pushed under by almost everyone stating their opinion of her views instead of what resulted,

    Reply this comment
    • Post American 10 September, 2015, 18:24

      Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters.[6] Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the “tyranny of the majority” in a democracy, and advocates of the rights of minorities have warned that the courts needed to protect those rights by reversing efforts by voters to terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.

      Reply this comment
  44. tiger paul 10 September, 2015, 16:49

    NOW PCR CHINA HAS A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE THE JUDGE HAS 2 PARLEGAL JURORS TO DETERMINE THE CASE OUTCOME They believe a Judge has 2 much power by ruling without a Civilians help Scotland has 3 Verdicts 1 Guilty 2 insuficent evidence 3 Guilty !! Democracy Should have a system wherby a Jury rules By Vote Lawyers get 1 person to vote against 11 and man Goes free !! If we said 8 jury vote 1 way a Verdict is Done much more Fair and DEMOCRATIC !!!

    Reply this comment
  45. Dr. Adrian Krieg 10 September, 2015, 16:52

    The emerging police state in America expanding for the last 25 years has reached the point where honest people must oppose this run away government. When “we the people” allow such judicial act even in the Supreme Fools, we get what we deserve. When 5 justices enact law (which they are constitutionally not allowed to do) and read into our law a homosexual agenda and the people don’t oppose, we are all toast!
    Dr. A. H. Krieg CMFGE see my site http://www.a2zpublications.com

    Reply this comment
  46. bob 10 September, 2015, 17:20

    Oath keepers my ass, what a joke. Oath to what? Certainly not the constitution. She broke the law. Plain and simple. At least the oath keepers are dropping their facade about being in support of the constitution and have come out of the closet as just another hate group.

    Reply this comment
    • JAH 10 September, 2015, 20:06

      What “law” did she break?

      Reply this comment
      • Tim 10 September, 2015, 22:14

        KRS 522.020, Official Misconduct in the First Degree, for intentionally failing to issue marriage licenses in accordance with KRS 402.080, in order to deprive others of benefit to which they are legally entitled under the 14th Amendment, as per Bourke v Beshear, which was upheld as a result of Obergefell v Hodges, and was originally heard in the US District Court of Western KY in Louisville, KY. Ergo, the case was decided locally, appealed, and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court under its constitutional authority in Article III. As a Class A misdemeanor, this is an arrestable offense under STATE law.

        The court also retains power to issue arrest warrants for contempt: KRS 600.060 No diminishment of court’s inherent contempt power.

        Reply this comment
      • Bob Eckert 10 September, 2015, 22:20

        County clerks in Kentucky “SHALL ISSUE” marriage licenses to couples who meet legal requirements. Plaintiffs were of age, not closely related, and neither was mentally impaired or married to another: there is no requirement that the couple be of opposite gender because the Supreme Court, interpreting the 14th Amendment as Article III requires it to do, determined that such a requirement violates the guarantee of equal protection. This is no different than if a vegan refused you a hunting license under a “shall issue” statute because he didn’t think you should have it, for reasons of whatever “sincerely held beliefs” he might have.

        Reply this comment
    • Captain Jim 10 September, 2015, 21:20

      First of all, the Supreme Court had no right to make a ruling on marriage, something reserved purely to the States. Chief Justice Roberts even stated that in his dissenting opinion. Therfore, their ruling is not valid and the Kentucky law remains intact. Kim Davis was uphoding State law, therefore she is not guilty of anything. And secondly, the judge had no right to arrest her for not doing what “he” wanted done. He overstepped his bounds very badly and should be run out of office for it.The Oath Keepers are exactly right in what they are doing and I support them 100%. Jim Green, former Naval Officer

      Reply this comment
      • Michael 10 September, 2015, 21:41

        SCOTUS does not make laws, but they interpret laws. In this case, the law they interpreted was the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which they stated covers the right of same-sex couples to marry in all 50 states. And since Federal law trumps state law, the SCOTUS ruling overrides the Kentucky statute.

        Those are the facts. Of course, I recognize that you don’t like them, and so will continue to pout and posture and wave your little guns around. But this is the reality. It’s how our Constitution works.

        Reply this comment
        • Petunia100 10 September, 2015, 22:32

          Well said, Michael.

          Reply this comment
        • Dr. Clifford N. Alford 11 September, 2015, 00:55

          You are right. SCOTUS simply interpreted the Constitution. And, if any Oath Keeper gets in the way of the police who may be sent to arrest this woman again then they will deserve to be either shot for resisting a legal court order, or to go to jail right along with this elected public servant who has refused to do her sworn duty. Did you get that last part? Her SWORN duty. She has violated her Oath of Office. If any Oath Keepers pick a fight with the police and courts over this then we are going to give the left wingers the chance they have been looking for to get rid of us legally, and there will be very little hope of our being able to prevent it. Lets hope that the Oath Keeper national leadership pays attention to what you said so well here.

          Reply this comment
  47. brimed 10 September, 2015, 17:28

    Wow, first time I’ve disagreed with the Oath Keepers. We are all about defending the Constituion which guarantees free rights for all. In this case, a law was passed to give Gay and Lesbian couples the same rights as everyone else. Kim Davis is violating that law and these couples god given rights (depending on which God you believe in and the Constitution does not specify). She was arrested for violating the law and not for her beliefs. As an elected official she is obligated to uphold the law herself…isn’t that what this whole organization is about, not allowing politicians to push their own agenda? Stewart Rhodes, in this case is being a hypocrite.

    Reply this comment
    • Ben 10 September, 2015, 23:13

      I agree. Whatever anybody’s views on gay marriage, Oathkeepers doesn’t need to be getting involved like this. I was very excited when I joined Oathkeepers 3 years ago. But at the time I thought they were a non-partisan, non-political organization that really stood for what I believed. I have realized recently that Oathkeepers never falls on a side of an issue that is not the “conservative” or “right-wing” side. There are plenty of examples of oppression coming from the republican side too. We acknowledge that with our words, but never in practice. This is just the latest example. I liked what was coming out of Oathkeepers during the Snowden days, but not anymore. I still take my oath very seriously, but will no longer call myself a member of Oathkeepers.

      Reply this comment
    • Fredrick R Smith 10 September, 2015, 23:26

      Please site the law that Kim Davis broke. (You cannot count contempt of court).

      Reply this comment
      • Soonerman 11 September, 2015, 00:31

        Fred – She’s a government official.

        She violated Article 1 of the 14th Amendment. Shall I post it here?

        So, you’re defending one tyrannical government official from the tyranny of another?
        I’m sorry that you don’t see that.

        Reply this comment
      • Southern Girl 11 September, 2015, 01:05

        Here are the laws that have been broken:
        1) Uh, yes you can cite Contempt of Court because that is a law.
        2) Official Misconduct for intentionally not doing her elected and sworn duty in accordance with the law in order to deprive others of benefit to which they are legally entitled.
        People can legally be arrested for these offenses.

        Reply this comment
      • Brad 11 September, 2015, 01:10

        18 USC 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law.

        Reply this comment
  48. sp 10 September, 2015, 17:30

    Kim Davis is using her government office to deny people their constitutional rights based on her personal religious beliefs. Sorry guys, you are on the wrong side of this.

    Reply this comment
    • LRRP 10 September, 2015, 20:39

      This is my first disagreement with the Oathkeepers. I must agree with SP and Brimed (comments above). Kim Davis is an elected official of Rowan county. She took an OATH, I believe, to execute her job and obey all laws. She promised the people who elected her that she would faithfully execute the duties of the County Clerk. If her religious beliefs prohibit her from doing her sworn job she MUST resign. Lets see if the 80K salary she has now will trump her belief about same sex marriage.Mike Huckabee offering to do her jail time is a joke. He just showed his true colors. By the way Mr Rhodes, contempt of court is something that a Judge must take seriously. Without it he has no control over his Courtroom. I hope that Oathkeepers is not losing the original focus of the organization. Backing Kim Davis who is not willing to keep her oath seems to go against the original mission statement of the organization.

      Reply this comment
    • Michael Eric 11 September, 2015, 01:12

      Agreed. I get (and support) the stance against the over reach of the Contempt provision by the Courts, but in THIS case, the OathKeepers are basically aligning themselves as supporting Ms. Davis’ unconstitutional misuse of her elected office. Supporting Davis and her fellow Taliban in seeking to supplant our Secular Republic with Theocracy is a violation of our Oaths, not ‘Keeping’ our Oaths.

      Reply this comment
  49. Don 10 September, 2015, 18:02

    I’m one state north of Kentucky, and if needed i could be on stand by to assist if needed.

    Reply this comment
  50. fixer 10 September, 2015, 18:55

    You guys have lost my support. Mrs Davis violated the rule of law in ignoring a legal court order. You are being blinded to you oath by your zeal to support some ideology that has no support in our laws.

    Reply this comment
  51. Continental Soldier 10 September, 2015, 18:59

    I agree totally with the view that Ms. Davis’ arrest and incarceration was illegal and beyond any legitimate power of the court, but how do you propose to prevent it from happening again? Forcible resistance? Not a good idea in this case, for the simple reason that Ms. Davis accomplished much more by serving a week in jail than she or any supporter could have done otherwise. It brought the struggle for religious freedom against judicial tyranny (by both the District and Supreme Courts) to the forefront of the nation’s (and the world’s) consciousness in a way that the media could not ignore! The proposed effort to keep it from happening again reminds me of the Apostle Peter grabbing the Roman soldier’s sword in the Garden of Gethsemane to prevent the arrest of our Lord and Savior, an arrest which was necessary to accomplish His mission. “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God…” Think strategically, brothers and sisters!

    Reply this comment
  52. Jude 10 September, 2015, 19:34

    there was no issue with due process in this situation. A judge issued an order and she refused, more than once to follow it, and she lost her appeals , all of them. hence then going to work and refusing to follow the orders of the judge is contempt of court, contempt of court does not require due process such as a jury, its under the judge’s purview and power to decide what is contempt and to issue orders for fines or jail. She went to jail because she repeatedly refused to follow an order with regard not to her religion but a government office.
    I’m disappointed that oathkeepers would get involved with this. What part of your oath is being tested here? this situation is non applicable to the position you claim to take regarding the constitution. IF she cannot be in an office that issues these licenses, she needs to resign. Find a job that does not include such challenges to her beliefs.

    Reply this comment
  53. betsyaida 10 September, 2015, 19:38

    I am sincerely hope that the judge is going to be held accountable shame on him. I have had a judge call me from Las Vegas while I was in California who held a hearing on the phone because he was buddies with the lawyer representing the plaintiff. It was illegal and I recorded it. We had a financial planner who had defrauded us out of 50K and she was doing this to people all over the US. When I posted on line a complain against her they filed a libelous suit against us. They had us served and this corrupt Las Vegas judge called to intimidate us via this illegal court hearing over the phone. I had no attorney to represent me. In the end the financial planner was forced to return my 50K and the IRS shut her down. She is under serious investigation via the IRS. I know I played a huge part in her getting shut down as I filed a whistelblower action against her with the IRS and they wanted all the documents I could give them. NOTHING happened to this judge. So YES I am thrilled that this judge will have to be held accountable.

    Can anyone please clarify for me if Kim indeed denied others their constitutional rights by refusing to allow any employees to give marriage certificates in place of herself since it was against her religion? I would like to know the answer to this so I am better educated.

    I hope Kim quits ASAP –> if <– Kim will continue to prevent marriage certificates from being issued in her office by other employees. If Kim will let other employees hand them out and not interfere I am happy for her to keep her post. However, her religious views have no place in deciding if marriage certificates are granted or not as a US public servant. Until someone who knows better than me (who can correct me if this is wrong) I am going to guess that Kim did violate the constitutional rights of all the people that were refused marriage licenses when all the staff was prevented from issuing them.

    I am all out for Oathkeepers helping to protect her from this judge. However, it would be nice (if what Kim did was also unconstitutional) for Oathkeepers to firmly state that although Kim violated the constitutional rights of others it is of more concern that a powerful judge would try to make this right by violating Kim's constitutional rights to a jury trial. The moral of the story is two wrongs do not make a right.

    I support Kim and anyone to have any views they believe in but stomping on the rights of others by abusing the power as an appointed US public servant can't be legal (or is it?). It is very ironic that the judge seemingly bestowed on Kim exactly what Kim in turn did to the public. If they both violated the constitution it would be best if both were equally held accountable for their actions as both were abusing the powers of the offices that they both hold.

    To be silly… I did a quick search on bible versus on reaping what you sow and this is what I found. I suppose the versus apply both to Kim and the judge LOL:

    Job 4:8 "As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same."

    Luke 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”

    Proverbs 22:8 "Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail."

    Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;"

    Reply this comment
    • Bob Eckert 10 September, 2015, 22:22

      “Can anyone please clarify for me if Kim indeed denied others their constitutional rights by refusing to allow any employees to give marriage certificates in place of herself since it was against her religion?” That’s correct.

      Reply this comment
      • betsyaida 11 September, 2015, 20:19

        Well then sticking with the topic at hand of this article and not spinning off on whether or not gay marriage is right or whether the courts have any right over bestowing marriage licenses….

        Oathkeepers I am for you protecting Kim from the judge 100% because some judges are reckless and they are doing bad things that could potentially set disastrous legal precedence that could be used in the future to violate our constitutional rights BUT please please!…. while you protect Kim PLEASE simultaneously acknowledge publicly and clearly that Kim too was as equally abusive as the judge by using her power, as a US public servant, to violate the constitutional rights of “We the people”. Clarify for the world that in order to stop this cycle of abuse Oathkeepers is stepping in and preventing the judge from having the opportunity to set legal precedence that could be used in the future to violate our constitutional rights and in no way does that mean Oathkeepers will continue to support Kim from violating others constitutional rights.

        That might be a good thing to do. Maybe you have already done that and I haven’t read it. If so could you please point this out so that I can tell other people where to find this info?

        Reply this comment
  54. The LGBT Community 10 September, 2015, 20:31

    I believe I speak for all of the LGBT community when I say that ” The Oath Keepers have lost sight” and the Oath Keepers are just feeding the fire, what will this fix? bringing guns and force into this? Are we really willing to loose more lives (in a worse case scenario) over same sex marriage to deny our right in the pursuit of happiness? (that was given to every man woman and child in the declaration of independence as we are all created equally) The LGBT community have lost enough lives….and these lives shouldn’t just be considered lives of the LGBT communities but as lives of the United States Of America! How many Must perish before we all remember that church and state are to remain separate?
    Where is the Honor in the Peace Keepers denying millions of people their Happiness? The LGBT community Hope you reconsider!

    Reply this comment
    • Soonerman 11 September, 2015, 00:25

      Exactly.
      What’s ironic?
      They complain about tyranny of one government official and, yet, they are going to defend the tyranny of another.

      Reply this comment
  55. Bigma 10 September, 2015, 20:59

    When I work for someone and take their paycheck, I do my job in accordance with their wishes. If I have a moral objection to something I am asked to do, I have the choice to resign, and I have done so many.times in my life. That is what Mrs Davis should have done. That is the problem with taking a government check. You have to be prepared to do the government’s bidding or resign.. I do agree she should have been afforded due process, but I personally do not support her position whereby she is judge and jury concerning the rights of others. Another point is that, as a government officer she swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to enforce her view of the Bible. There is a reason the Constitution provides for freedom of religion, Thank God. That is because many Christians at the time couldn’t agree. If they had all agreed, we would have had a Theocracy by now. If she expect people to respect her religious views, she must, in return respect the views of others, regardless if it offends her.

    Reply this comment
  56. Shorty Dawkins 10 September, 2015, 21:06

    I see the SPLC has sent in their attack dogs, in an effort to confuse the situation, and to twist the argument into something it is not. They have done this before, and will do it again. Please, listen to what Stewart Rhodes is actually saying, not what you WISH he was saying.

    Shorty Dawkins
    Associate Editor

    Reply this comment
    • Soonerman 11 September, 2015, 00:27

      Shorty – Kim Davis is a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL!

      I think it’s ironic that you guys don’t see that (and kind of funny).

      Reply this comment
      • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 02:21

        I have a question for you: Who created the Constitution and made it the Supreme Law of the Land?

        Reply this comment
        • NeoVictorian 11 September, 2015, 16:27

          Government officials, in that they were representatives chosen by the people (not 1 person 1 vote granted) of their respective states to attend the constitutional congress?

          Reply this comment
          • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 18:45

            The Constitution was written by the delegates to the Convention, but it was the States ratifying it, as a Compact they agreed to that brought it into being as the force of Law.. The States, therefore, are the final arbiters of whether or not the Constitution is being followed.

        • Baruch 11 September, 2015, 18:18

          Shorty if you want to live in a country that does not offer the constitutional rights that the US offers, there are plenty to choose from. I wonder if your knickers were in this much of a twist when the supreme court ruled that corporations have the same rights as people? Or is it just gay people you want to oppress?

          Reply this comment
          • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 18:55

            Such a tired argument, Baruch. By the way, I happen to have been very opposed to personhood for corporations. I oppose the very concept of government granted rights for businesses. Get over it.

    • Levi 11 September, 2015, 02:07

      We’ve all read it. He’s simply incorrect and doesn’t understand procedure in the least. She’s an elected public official and her office has specific requirements which she refuses to do because of her private religious convictions. It is well within the judge’s purview to assign jail time or a fine for contempt of the law. No fine was given because of the possibility of online crowdsourcing campaigns that would essentially make the fines meaningless.

      Reply this comment
  57. Agent M. Scarn 10 September, 2015, 21:17

    May you go there to find a bullet in your head. You are a disgrace to the United States of America. You are an ignorant buffoon who does not understand the Constitution, the law, or reality. I truly hope you meet your end for your treasonous actions.

    Associate Editor’s note: This is an example of the type of comment we receive from the “peace-loving” community. Agent Scarn? Agent for what? Hatred?

    Shorty Dawkins
    Associate Editor

    Reply this comment
    • Petunia 100 10 September, 2015, 22:42

      I believe it is a reference to Agent Michael Scarn, the fictitious hero of Michael Scott, the office manager of the fictitious Dunder Mifflin, of The Office fame.

      Reply this comment
  58. Paleo Actual 10 September, 2015, 21:43

    What Stewart says is right on. I will disseminate this with proper credit to its 24 kt author. Oorah!! Who owns the narrative owns the turf. A lie unchallenged becomes the truth.

    Reply this comment
  59. Vinny 10 September, 2015, 21:45

    I have read all of the comments and submit this comment…….to start with, the lady was in a position that she should of resigned from if she had a problem with the Supreme Court decision. It was obvious this situation would occur sooner or later. She could of also appointed another staff member to do the documents. I do not personally support the courts decision, however, there are truly many more pressing issues that our organization needs to be addressing than dealing with this issue. We are being over run by our own government, the government is filling up with Muslim Brotherhood and Sister Brotherhood members, open borders, illegal immigration,they are after our Second Amendment, our Sovereignty, our Flag, Our Constitution and the list goes on. We must avoid these kind of issues that might divide our membership and organization in a time when we MUST stay on the same page collectively to address our adversary’s that are trying to bring this Sovereign Free Enterprise Constitutional Republic down……that is the true challenge we are facing….let Ms. Davis fix her own situation….Oath Keepers must stay bonded and remember “The Oath” we all took !!

    Reply this comment
  60. lightonthetrigger 10 September, 2015, 22:56

    Which law should she have broken, Kentucky law that defines marriage and elected as such by her peers or a power grab at the fed level for approving her office to grant without her name but office on the document? do a little research

    Reply this comment
    • Fredrick R Smith 10 September, 2015, 23:29

      The Federal law also says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I still haven’t had anyone say what law she broke?

      Reply this comment
      • Aron 11 September, 2015, 01:36

        Fredrick, No it isn’t, and hasn’t been since 2013. United States vs Windsor on June 26th, 2013, struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, as unconstitutional.

        Reply this comment
  61. D. Bertrand 11 September, 2015, 01:05

    This is a clear case of federal intervention into a state’s sovereignty. She has not violated any state law. An example is the legal use of medical marijuana by state laws, but here comes the DEA and overrides state rights. I know a few Veterans having to use MMJ and I doubt they’d easily go to a federal prison.

    The feds should have taken the issue up with state legislators, by persuading them to change state laws. Coming-in and waving the gold fringe U.S. flag, they grabbed a state employee and attempted to subject her to federal laws (without due-process). (Which is questionable in itself since Congress is suppose to make laws.

    The County Sheriff could have stepped-in and stopped her from being arrested. She (at least) could have been sent home until the matter was settled.

    Nobody cares until it happens in your neighborhood. To many of you, she is the woman that was married 3 other times and has become a devout Christian, and answers to a higher law, therefore…hang her in the square. Others see it as a terrible misuse of power and has NOTHING to do with Gays. That’s the conflict and jailing her can have a negative affect on how (WE) might have to deal with tyranny.

    The “Change” coming to America is ripe with dissent and action….and that is what THEY want and they’re itching for it.

    AND…you SPLC goons on here….can’t wait until you all end up in prison for instigating “Hate.” Another revolution this time will be the blood on the hands of the SPLC and others that usurp state sovereignty.

    ALL these issues we’re seeing in America, creating violence and dissent, is NOT our creation, but is the plan by which the social engineers have initiated in-order to create hatred between races and religious beliefs.

    Things were pretty calm until this administration’s last 2 years.

    Reply this comment
    • HistorianDude 11 September, 2015, 13:23

      Perhaps you need a refresher on the US Constitution. I suggest you start with Article Six, Clause 2.

      Reply this comment
      • Harvieux 11 September, 2015, 16:45

        HistorianDude, Phunny you should bring up Article VI, Clause 2 because the facts I am going to present here may rock your world in realizing that the constitution is fraught with fraud.

        First off, we can use the Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 a.k.a. The Treaty of Paris 1783 where it specifies in the first paragraph that the King of England (Crown) is Arch Treasurer and Prince Elector for the United States of America. Please do your research on what this means but a hint I will give is the fact that we have a boot on our necks while they continue to rape and pillage our people. How’s that for a taste of the supreme law of the land? “roll eyes”

        Reply this comment
    • JoshG 11 September, 2015, 13:30

      What are you talking about they subjected her to federal laws without Due Process? The 7th Amendment does not apply to the states to require a trial by jury, it was never incorporated. And to talk about Due Process rights what about the Due process rights of the same sex couple Davis used her religious beliefs to discriminate and deny rights to?

      The Supreme Court in 1923 (see Nebraska v Meyer) ruled that every citizen has the right to marriage as a fundamental liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (you know life, liberty, property). Everybody is on this high horse that the Supreme Court in Obergefell made a new law, but they did not. They INTERPRETED the due process clause as they did in Meyer to say that same sex couples have the same LEGAL right to marriage as other Americans. This did not redefine religion, it did not make it so all religions have to believe marriage is not solely between a man and a woman. it meant that same sex couples have the LEGAL right tot the economic benefits of marriage (health insurance, life insurance, death plan benefits, etc.).

      In regards to KY state law, the effect of Obergefell is that because same sex couples are recognized under the Constitution as having a right to marry, any law that prevents them from the ECONOMIC benefits of marriage conflicts with the Constitution. Article 6 section 2(the Supremacy Clause) states that any state law that conflicts with the Constitution and denies a person rights under the Constitution is pre-empted. No new law was made just the Constitution was being enforced.

      And if you want to cry about 1st Amendment rights of Davis, the free exercise clause does provide religious freedom. IT DOES NOT allow you to use your beliefs to deny the rights and discriminate which is what Davis did (see Employment Division v smith). You want to argue RFRA? Sure first the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not use RFRA (see City of Boernes). but states were free to establish there own. Kentucky does have their own RFRA which requires that a state cannot intrude on a persons religious beliefs even if it violates a generally applicable law unless they can show a compelling state government interest. Well before it would be a compelling government interest to prevent state employees from denying the rights to American citizens and discriminating, BUT now thanks to Stewart Rhodes and oathkeepers it is now a compelling state interest to prevent violence and insurrection. So I guess thanks.

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 11 September, 2015, 17:15

        First, you are incorrect.

        The US Constitution, Article VI: “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

        “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”

        They are bound to support the US Constitution along with the state Constitution.

        But the “laws”, “regulations”, “treaties”, etc created by those who SERVE WITHIN the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH of the general (federal) government MUST BE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF THE US CONSTITUTION to be lawful.

        They must have constitutional authority to interfere in a state matter as states ARE sovereign governments concurrent with the general government. Not only that, state governments are above the general government and its LIMITED (foreign affairs mainly) DELEGATED duties. This is not a “power” delegated to those who SERVE WITHIN the general government. Usurpation is a crime, usually along with Treason.

        “They INTERPRETED the due process clause as they did in Meyer to say that same sex couples have the same LEGAL right to marriage as other Americans.”

        Judges do not have the delegated authority to *”interpret” the US Constitution. They can decipher its meaning as required from … let the framers say it in their own words.

        James Madison, the acknowledged Father of the US Constitution: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

        Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. …”

        James Madison: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

        James Madison, Fed 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

        James Madison, Fed 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (It was established.)

        James Madison, Fed 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

        James Madison, Fed 46: “The Federal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes… They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other.”

        Getting the idea of what our government is besides this bastardized

        Marriage has been used by people long before the American government was created, and it was a RELIGIOUS ceremony. Government stepped in to start requiring marriage “licenses” to stop mixed racial marriages.

        Legal definition of “License”: The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.
        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license

        It was a way to collect fees. But it also had another purpose, to REGISTER people and start tracking them.

        But the other problem is that the judges involved in the decision that Gays may marry used FOREIGN law, etc as its basis. That is not LAWFUL or Constitution here in America. It is Treason on the part of the judges involved. The judges who disagreed should have then, or even now, charged them with Treason, Oathbreaking (felony and high Treason), Perjury, etc.

        The decision must be based on the US Constitution itself, constitutional precedence not foreign precedence, etc to be LAWFUL here in the USA. That does require a new trial by judges that are using “Good Behaviour” while in office while we charge, prosecute, and remove those traitors.

        The Supremacy Clause requires all actions done by those that sere within the general government to be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution, and using foreign laws is not constitutional.

        “… what about the Due process rights of the same sex couple Davis used her religious beliefs to discriminate and deny rights to?”

        Actually she suspended the issuance of ALL marriage licenses. There was NO discrimination. She upheld her state laws as is required until the LEGISLATIVE branch of her state government could rule on it.

        Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes – delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

        *James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort;…”

        Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

        John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

        “BUT now thanks to Stewart Rhodes and oathkeepers it is now a compelling state interest to prevent violence and insurrection”

        Wow, nice to know that the Oathkeepers have such power and following.

        But did you consider ever that this clerk is being made an example of the “don’t defy the ‘great wizard of oz’ (those that serve within the general government or judges)” to the American people? So that the people will ignore instead of prosecute their Treasonous, criminal and unAmerican actions?

        Guess what, we not only need to know, we already call them all corrupt, now we need to remove and PROSECUTE them to the fullest extent of OUR US Constitutional LAW! We will be removing judges for NOT using “Good Behaviour” while serving as required, and yes, with jury trials.

        You see, while those who were placed within our government refuse to do the duty as they are contracted and under Oath to, “We the People of the United States” LIKE our legitimate government enough to remove them by whatever Constitutional means left available to us – which now looks like the CONSTITUTIONALLY required Militia-because Election Fraud messes greatly with the peoples voice; and “recall” is a joke.

        Yes they WILL be charged and prosecuted, those who deserve to be. They will have their day in court.

        Reply this comment
  62. Obbop 11 September, 2015, 01:26

    A convoluted thread with various subjects brought up such as keeping government out of the marriage “contract.” I comprehend why OK entered this battle but some of the naysayers offer good reasons for backing away.

    Yes, OK leadership can steer the organization in any direction they desire but there are no conscripts here and how much clout would OK have with a denuded membership? Do as you will OK leader(s) but it would be a shame if bullheaded stubbornness nullified the progress you have made up to this point. Surely some type of happy medium palatable to the majority can be found.

    Reply this comment
    • John Ackerby 11 September, 2015, 05:24

      I’m a liberal and I supported OK going to Ferguson to show their presence there but this Kim Davis thing is different. OK is saying that the judge did something wrong locking her up because there was no jury trial but contempt of court in a civil matter is different and a judge can lawfully lock you up for contempt of course in a civil matter without a trial.OK is just plain wrong in this matter and they are really making a big PR mistake in this matter because really it is Kim Davis who is being the tyrannical government figure in this matter. She is abusing her power and corrupting her power and even perverting her power. The law does not give her the right to deny gay people marriage licenses and really as far as morality goes it is she who is being immoral because she is unlawfully standing in the way of letting innocent and harmless exercise a constitutional right.The Supreme Court determined that gay people have the right to marry so what she is doing is cruel. She is interfering with gay people’s personal happiness even though gay people are not doing a darn thing to her. She’s denying tax-paying gay people access to a government function (citizens processing their marriages is a government function) the same as Governor Wallace denied black people the right to enter tax funded schools. She’s a bully. And she belongs in jail.

      OK would be better served if OK marched with those gay people to the clerk’s office and demanded that the clerk issue the gay people marriage licenses. If OK would do that it would be the same as going back in time and marching with the black kids to the school to demand that Governor Wallace let those black kids go to the tax funded school. OK was not around back when Governor Wallace denied black kids access to tax funded schools, but OK is given an opportunity to demonstrate that they would have been on the right side of the issue back then…that they would have stood WITH those black kids who were just trying to go to school back then.

      BTW, I’m totally straight.

      Reply this comment
      • Kevin 11 September, 2015, 13:17

        Yes, the power of judges to jail people who are in contempt of an order is not a new one an I don’t think it’s been expanded recently, or that this example is an extreme one.

        Reply this comment
    • RosenOtter 11 September, 2015, 07:07

      I think they’ve slipped over that big, visible line marked ‘treason’, myself.

      Reply this comment
  63. Dale 11 September, 2015, 02:34

    Forget what Kentucky law Ms. Davis broke, what about the 1st Amendment? By evoking God into the equation, she is breaking a fundamental American law of separation of church & state. Surely all of you remember that some of our founding fathers were religiously persecuted in Europe. I see this as Stewart Rhodes cherry picking to the extreme. For what reason? Is he being blinded by anger, impatience, politics, faith or worse yet, the spotlight? Doesn’t he realize our main battle is still a war of words/ideology? If OK continues down this path, we will lose this war. I am a proud founding member of OK & still believe in it’s initial purpose. And I can’t count how many times others have told me I am the most patient man they know. But this hypocritical rush to judgement is testing my patience & making me question my membership.

    Reply this comment
    • Alexander 11 September, 2015, 03:38

      Couldn’t agree more, Dale. All I see in the comments is Fox News and GOP ideology. Take off your tin hats, people. Kim Davis swore to uphold the Constitution, like we did, except she broke that oath. She is imposing HER beliefs on everyone else. You can believe whatever fairy tale -sky-cake crap you want, but do NOT impose it on others. When you do, you go to jail. Period.

      Reply this comment
      • john m 11 September, 2015, 20:49

        Show me what part of the US Constitution she violated. And don’t hand me that “but muh 14th amendment”, because she didn’t issue straight marriage licenses either, and don’t hand me “but muh supremacy”, because the Feds can’t claim supremacy on powers they never had – marriage has always been a state right, there has never been a federal marriage license. The feds can’t claim supremacy on anything it wants, if that’s not true, then the 9th and 10th amendments are meaningless.

        Reply this comment
  64. Capt. Karl 11 September, 2015, 03:28

    I served at the Bunkerville Op. I ran desert patrols there and served on The Bundy Ranch PSD.

    Cliven and Carol Bundy will vouch for me.

    If you need me for the Kim Davis detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. I feel that the Lord my God has directed me to offer my services.

    May the Lord our God bless and keep the OKs under the Protective Wings of His Warrior Angels. PWHWA.

    Reply this comment
  65. Nancy - California Patriot 11 September, 2015, 05:32

    Where is the word “marriage” in the United States Constitution? How can Kim Davis break a “law” that doesn’t actually exist? Most of the Civil Rights movement was against the “law” at the time! So if SCOTUS decides that polygamy and beastiality are the “law” are we all supposed to follow that as well????????? I’m with Oath Keepers!

    Reply this comment
  66. Cpl bonness usmc 11 September, 2015, 06:47

    Any fellow vet who stands by her I am ashamed of.

    Reply this comment
    • johnm 11 September, 2015, 20:51

      When your 1st amendment rights are being violated because the bill of rights has lost all practical meaning, we’ll be sure not to bother asking how you feel.

      Reply this comment
  67. The Veil 11 September, 2015, 08:19

    It would be absolutely foolish for Oathkeepers to tread in to the Commonwealth of Kentucky while armed with the explicit intent to interfere with any law enforcement agency who has a court order to remand Kim Davis to custody once more, assuming she wishes to further violate the lawful orders given to her by Judge Bunning. You would go against your own principles of Oathkeeping, merely to interfere with others who are keeping theirs because your views on what it means to keep that oath have become deluded. That is extremely hypocritical, asinine and why I plan to not renew my membership for another year when it comes due in October. For what its worth you will not win any armed confrontation with local law enforcement in Kentucky, and you will most certainly be obliterated by the US Marshall service, should you attempt anything in their presence. They are NOT the BLM or a podunk Sheriff like what was seen at Bundy Ranch. These are Federal Officers who can project force with issued battle rattle approaching that of an operator. Plus you will now have to contend with the hundreds of members of various militias in Kentucky who are mobilizing and coordinating with local law enforcement to oppose any attempt at armed interference/confrontation by Oathkeepers. They do not appreciate the organization treading in to their state uninvited to take up an unjust cause, and many of them are prepared to lay down their lives to protect the state and those who are rightfully upholding their oath, while repelling unwelcome visitors. I will be right there with them, fighting a long side them and local law enforcement if and when that time comes. Good luck against the real resistance gentleman, from a former Marine and Deputy Sheriff.

    Reply this comment
  68. Al 11 September, 2015, 09:23

    Hmmmm. What ‘oath’ are you keepers of? You are bigger idiots and terrorists to this country then I first thought. Kim Davis was held, rightly so, in contempt for not following the judges orders. I would love to see you try to prevent her going to jail again. I’d love to see you all back down from your idiocy. Take on the government…LOLOL. You’re all idiots.

    Reply this comment
  69. teeohpee 11 September, 2015, 10:16

    The Oath Keepers are defending “The Oath Breaker” The only person you guys should be threatening to shoot is Kim Davis.

    Reply this comment
  70. RealmanPwns 11 September, 2015, 11:58

    Hypocrisy and ignorance from the Oath Keepers is unfortunate.

    You certainly know nothing of the Constitution or law for that matter.

    Civil Contempt is not a sentence nor a punishment unlike criminal contempt. It needs no jury trial nor finding of guilt. It is not an accusation of a crime. It is procedural typically to obtain compliance of court orders.

    Article III section II of the constitution gives absolute authority to the Federal Courts including the United States Supreme Court to decide and interpret Constitutional issues arising in court.

    Your arguments are nothing but uninformed babble inspired by bigotry and hate.

    You aren’t keeping your oath. You’re violating it.

    Reply this comment
  71. Tyler Durden 11 September, 2015, 12:13

    Done with oathkeepers and have serious doubts about Stewart Rhodes now. Your supporting a statist and actually going against the Constitution. Under the concepts of the founders you have a right to contract with whomever you wish. Marriage licenses were born out of control over that right and just like gun laws were born of racism keeping control of interracial marriages. Just as the states seek to control liberty so does this woman. You have reduced yourselves to circus clowns kardashians chasing notoriety. Protect liberty, there is none in either side of this equation as any truly interested in liberty should know. Government has no business in marriage and injecting yourselves into it proves your as statist as the ones on the left.

    Reply this comment
    • RealmanPwns 11 September, 2015, 12:42

      Marriage Licenses were also born of racism. The first marriage licenses were only required for interracial marriage. I digress…

      Reply this comment
  72. mag 11 September, 2015, 12:37

    I thought the oath keepers were a group of people who defended citizens against the government when they go against the constitution. Since when did they start doing exactly the oposite?

    Now the government wants to go against the constitution and against citizen rights and the oath keepers want to defend the government. Can someone explain this?

    It seems to me that the oath keepers have forgotten that Miss Davis, as an elected official is the government. It also seems to me that it has been decided that denying gay people marriage is unconstitutional. Therefore in this case the government, as represented by Miss Davis, is denying the gay people their constitutional right to marriage.

    Oath Keepers, it is time that you truly stand up for what you claim to believe, and you start defending every gay persons right to get a marriage licence by Miss Davis. If you start defending Miss Davis, and thereby the government in this case, you prove that you really do not care a single bit about the constitution.

    Reply this comment
  73. Justice 11 September, 2015, 12:46

    The issue is bigotry. The last hold on discrimination against a law and group of people they do not ‘like’ has resulted in creating a fiasco. Those refusing to acquiesce or accept the SC ruling have decided to use the religion card, which honestly is shameful. Instead of honouring the belief they hold dear they use it as a shield thus degrading what it stands for.
    Ms Davis is welcome to her personal views, opinions and beliefs as we all are. This has not changed.
    History tells us the same happened with the civil rights movement. Although it was made legal by decree, some refused to accept the idea that black/white were equal. We all know the stories, high jinks and issues which were associated with it.
    That type of lack of acceptance is upon us yet again cloaked behind religion (still).
    We are human beings, all of us. Citizens, all of us. People, all of us. Irrespective of our colour, gender, beliefs or lack of them. That is what the constitution is for – our equality- beyond personal bias’s.
    We ARE the people. Indivisible.
    Ms Davis was wrong for not following the law. She was wrong for instructing her clerks to disobey the law. She was wrong for discriminating against other people.

    Scotus determined banning SSM was unlawful and discriminatory. They also said it deserved ‘highest scrutiny’ because of past discrimination, which is why they took the case.
    IF you believe in upholding the constitution, then I cannot see how you would be upholding for Ms Davis.
    I believe in what you stand for, but not in this.
    SemperFi

    Reply this comment
  74. Bill 11 September, 2015, 12:54

    I thought the OK group was meant to defend the constitution? Why would they defend Kim Davis who is clearly an enemy of it?

    Also, what’s this nonsense about a jury trial? She was held in contempt of court, not charged with a crime. Please look up those things and see what they mean.

    Reply this comment
    • john m 11 September, 2015, 20:53

      Right, because being jailed for a non-crime over her 1st amendment beliefs is way better…….*eyeroll*

      Reply this comment
  75. Nacho 11 September, 2015, 13:25

    Contempt of Court doesn’t require a jury trial, and to my knowledge she never requested one. If the judge wanted her to be charged with criminal contempt of court that would be a separate jury trial, however that wasn’t needed.

    You have an individual that was clearly putting her personal feelings above the constitution, if she can no-longer fulfil her duties, it is her responsibility to step down. If she will defy a judges order to do her job, then she should be in jail.

    Reply this comment
  76. Nacho 11 September, 2015, 13:27

    You all also understand that the courtroom is in Ashland Kentucky, not Rowan County, the Rowan County Sherriff probably wasn’t even in the building

    Reply this comment
  77. JoshG 11 September, 2015, 13:36

    Stewart it is funny how you continue to say this is a Due Process issue, but you have absolutely no idea how courts work. Judges have specific discretionary powers in all court cases that allow them to make judgments without the need for a jury. The judge ordered Davis to abide by the law, she refused and he held her in contempt. the judge does not need to waste tax payers money to panel a jury to find that she violated his order and punish her accordingly

    Reply this comment
  78. Jeff From Ohio 11 September, 2015, 13:38

    I no longer need to be associated with Oath Keepers after seeing what you have done in this case.

    This was an elected official that failed to uphold her oath to the people. She was found in Contempt and jailed for failing to do so. Rightfully so.

    I will not stand for any elected official knowingly,willfully violating her oath she took. Neither should “Oath Keepers”.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 11 September, 2015, 17:51

      If/do you understood/understand your Oath, the US Constitution, not as those SERVING within our government “interprets” it unlawfully, but as it is REQUIRED to be understood?

      Some words that might assist in your understanding.

      16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

      What makes this an unconstitutional law is that it is based on Foreign law, foreign etc. Yep, it is a Treasonous action on the part of the judges who created this law here in America.

      Did YOU or any other US soldiers (not those that went with the UN because that is exactly what they are to do, force all nations into the NWO/OWG) fight for foreign laws to be implemented here, and our hard won sovereignty turned over to the NWO/One World Government (the same old “I am going to rule the world” with a different name)?

      That is what this is all about.

      Just like what happened at the Bundy Ranch was about the UN’s Agenda 21 – back door and beginning route to takeover and destroy the USA, the US Constitution, the American people.

      Or did you even realize that is what Bundy was all about?

      This is not about gays, or straights, or even about Whites/Asians/Blacks/Amer Indians,/etc or whatever. This is all about our national sovereignty and the destruction of it or the saving of it. Kim Davis is an excuse to end our American sovereignty and to make FOREIGN law, FOREIGN precedence, etc the rule here. It IS Treason, and when force is used, it IS *Terrorism against the American people, even if it is one person.

      Not seeing the whole picture, but one small unit is deceptive. This is not about anyone’s “rights”, it is about if those who serve within our government can continue to go without the restraint of our US Constitution.

      Please understand this. Otherwise, all you have been doing, and if you assist them in implementing it -unknowingly or not – is the same as the Germans did. “Just following orders” and /or “just doing your job” and the Nuremberg Trials said that those are NOT a defense against Treason and other crimes that would NOT have happened if you did not “Just follow orders” and /or “just do your job”.

      First to get this straight, the clerk was following her state law, and she suspended ALL marriage license issuance equally. The decision to let Gays marry was based almost entirely on Foreign law which IS Treason on the part of those judges who did not dissent, and then charge the ones who used those laws to undermine our US Constitution.

      (Yes, there must be another done to decide that case, and it MUST be based all on American laws, ideals, etc. But that is something entirely different then what is happening here.)

      I know I am not explaining it well, and that is because I am in the middle of all the research that got us to this point – but understand this has little to do with the clerk and her – at the time – lawful actions within her state. That anything else must be decided in real courts using real American law procedures.

      She must be defended to have her day in court, and the judge who chastised her did not himself uphold the state law as required, or remand it to a higher court on the constitutionality of it. She was correct in her actions, and she did not Force her beliefs on anyone there, she stated her personal feelings as is lawful.

      But there is something a lot bigger going on, and do understand that this is just another attack on our sovereignty by those wishing to destroy the United States of America.

      Hopefully you will still keep your Oath and withhold judgement until you study the issue a bit more because America is being hit on all sides, in many different ways, and she NEEDS you – and other Oathkeepers – more then ever now then at any time in her history.

      God Bless whatever you decide.

      The United States of American, the US Cosntitution, freedom, will end if you all decide not to stand for your nation. And, unfortunately when you discover how you and yours were deceived, they will have to come after you and yours as they always have done in history -and this is something they already know and are prepared to do while you will be just discovering it.

      Reply this comment
  79. Mike 11 September, 2015, 13:40

    I joined up with OK after the Ferguson footage and hearing the interviews with members. I Liked what I heard, and I liked what I read on the website as well.

    This, however, I don’t like.

    The very principle for which OK claims to be upholding in this matter relies on the clerks due process rights having been violated. The original matter was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, so that isn’t of issue. It’s the being jailed from the contempt charge that is the issue.

    However, from the clerks own appeal “Imprisonment is
    ‘punitive and criminal if it is imposed retrospectively for a ‘completed act of
    disobedience,’ such that the contemnor cannot avoid or abbreviate the confinement
    through later compliance.’ Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 828-29 (citation omitted)).” Because the clerk had the opportunity to end her confinement through compliance this confinement only required the due process of a civil proceeding. Further, she was released before the appeal was heard, as her deputies complied.

    Threatening armed resistance over the short-lived confinement of a government official for refusing to perform a duty – the mandate was upheld by the supreme court – in a perceived violation of civil (not criminal) due process, and when the appeal has yet to be heard, feels beyond the pale.

    This path is going to our membership and our cause.

    Reply this comment
  80. Luc 11 September, 2015, 14:07

    At least I’m glad to see the rest of the comments here are speaking out against this boneheaded move by OK. If OK moves in to Kentucky on behalf of the oath breaker Kim DAvis, I’m afraid it’s the end of the organization as a force for good.

    Legally, it’s indefensible to take up arms against Federal Marshalls who would be serving a valid warrant to arrest Kim Davis for contempt. It’s settled law, nothing unconstitutional about it. Defending Ms. Davis’ desire to continue earning 80K a year is not what I thought OK was established to do.

    1. Any OK members who appear near a Marshall serving a warrant will either be nothing but a pair of smoking boots, or doing a long stint in federal prison.

    2. OK will hemorrhage members. This kind of bigoted, political move is not what the members signed up for.

    3. The American people will hate this organization as a tool of the right wing bigots as much as Ms. Davis is.

    Rhodes can claim this isn’t about Ms. Davis issuing licenses, but that is all it is. Unless he slept through law school, he went to the same classes I did. And there is Zero fricking Constitutional rights infringement involved with J. Bunning having Davis incarcerated for contempt. The Judge would be completely within established law to toss her bigoted self behind bars for the remainder of the term so long as she’s in contempt.

    Her ability to stay out of jail is completely in her hands. She can comply with the court order and fulfill her oath, or she can resign from that nepotism infested clerk’s office.

    I also completely resent that anyone affiliated with OK past and present will be branded as traitors and insurrectionists if OK boots hit KY ground.

    Rhodes is unhinged on this one, and people follow him at their peril.

    Stop it now before it’s too late, if it’s not indeed already too late for OK.

    This decision is a disaster.

    Reply this comment
    • LexMorpheus 11 September, 2015, 17:30

      Psy op…. Do not be deceived. the “love wins” crowd is out in full force. Funny how they complain about how the clerk is “forcing” her views on them …sure seems like it’s the other way around, especially when people come ALL THE WAY FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO GET A LICENSE IN RURAL KY.

      Reply this comment
  81. hubert cumberdale 11 September, 2015, 14:12

    “Marriage” isn’t in the Constitution, but it’s contained in many many other laws. Her denying this right to a specific subgroup of citizens solely based on her bigoted religious beliefs violates the 14th Amendment, and arguably the 1st Amendment. If you do not comprehend this, then I would suggest enrolling in a civics class refresher.

    Reply this comment
    • LexMorpheus 11 September, 2015, 16:00

      “Marriage” is contained in many laws…in Kentucky “Marriage” is actually defined in the Constitution. Civics class over.

      Reply this comment
      • Kevin 11 September, 2015, 18:05

        The Constitution of the United States of America trumps State constitutions. Advanced civics class over.

        Reply this comment
      • Gant101 11 September, 2015, 18:08

        Civics class reopened.

        Tenth Amendement:

        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States…”

        Denying civil rights is prohibited by the Constitution to the States. Any state law, or “definition,” that does so is nullified by not just the Tenth, but also the Fourteenth Amendment, section 1:

        “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        Now unless you can find us a constitutionally sound law that classifies homosexual as ineligible for citizenship, you have absolutely nothing to stand on here.

        You’re not interested in defending the Constitution. You want to use it as cover for forcing your personal views and less than fully informed interpretations of it on others.

        Reply this comment
        • Oathkeeper 12 September, 2015, 00:23

          Laws, laws, laws…we keep talking about laws…The Supreme court made a ruling not a law. Congress makes laws. The Supreme court makes rulings or decisions based on law. There has been no Federal constitutional amendment passed for either gay marriages or marriage between solely a man and a women. So therefore this is not a Federal issue but a State issue. We do however have many states that did pass a State constitutional law defining marriage solely between a man and a women through congress based upon the majority vote of the people. That’s how a republic suppose to works.

          Reply this comment
      • Layni Shepherd 11 September, 2015, 18:44

        It makes no difference what the State Constitutions of any State may read. If the state Constitution is in Conflict with federal law, then Federal law is the over riding law. if you are going to make a comment then at least know what you are talking about. It is quite clear you have no idea of the Superior Jurisdiction of the Federal Government. You cannot pick and choose what laws you like or don’t like.

        Reply this comment
        • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 18:52

          Layni,
          You state: If the state Constitution is in Conflict with federal law, then Federal law is the over riding law.

          I reply: Only if the federal Law is in pursuance of the Constitution. Each States Constitution was approved by Congress when the State entered the Union, as being in pursuance of the Federal Constitution. Those who scream about the Supremacy Clause fail to point this vital fact out.

          Reply this comment
          • Gant101 11 September, 2015, 19:41

            Unless I’m mistaking your meaning, I have to ask: how exactly is nullifying any state constitutional provision that would deny equal rights to all citizens not in the pursuance of constitutional consistency?

          • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 20:03

            Gant101,

            It’s interesting how you phrase your question. I will ask a question in return. Since you obviously think nullification is a good thing, how exactly is Kentucky’s nullification of federal encroachment on State’s Rights, not Constitutional?

          • Gant101 11 September, 2015, 20:38

            And I think it’s interesting how you sidestepped answering my question.

            But to address yours, it’s not an encroachment on state’s rights at all. Kentucky never had a right to amend its constitution so as to selectively deny rights to any of its citizens.

            Would you support Kentucky had it amended its constitution to define marriage as only between specific Protestant denominations? Had they amended it so as to reestablish the Three Fifths Compromise within its borders? To deny voting rights to women? To quarter soldiers in private homes against their owners will?

            Had they done any of these things, would you even consider referring to Supreme Court rulings against them as “federal encroachment”?

            This isn’t about state’s rights or federal encroachment. It’s about some people trying to legislate their distaste for homosexuals into laws that contravene both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

          • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 21:17

            Gant101,
            I’m getting a little weary of your trying to make it about what it is not. You say it is not about State’s Rights, but it is. You say it is not about Federal encroachment, but it is. You pose hypotheticals that are childish. I’m guessing you don’t believe in the concept of Nullification, but this is what it is. Kentucky chose to Nullify Federal attempts to define marriage as anything but between a man and a woman.

          • Gant101 11 September, 2015, 22:35

            And I grow a little weary of how you ask questions but don’t answer any… how you argue by assertion rather than having the integrity (or ability?) to make a case for your position… how you frame those positions as if they’re self-evident when they’re anything but… how you apparently don’t realize that “I’m guessing…” or “Obviously…” attempts at casting straw-men have absolutely no place in discussions such as these, or any other.

            But please, do keep beating the nullifications drum! We’ll see how it works out for you.

        • LexMorpheus 11 September, 2015, 20:14

          And we all know the The Supremes are always right

          Reply this comment
        • Victoria 12 September, 2015, 01:10

          There is NO law, the Supreme Court can not create laws nor pass them. Their duty is to uphold and interpret the law, in accordance with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The court can set a PRECEDENCE but it does NOT have the POWER to CREATE nor PASS laws. If you are going to make a comment then at least know what you are taking about, and you might try a little bit of tact and a little less pompous ass. Any valid argument will stand up better when you don’t sound like a JACKASS. Just FYI

          Reply this comment
      • Ike 11 September, 2015, 19:35

        Ok lex lets try this… The Liberals in your state all pass a STATE constitutional amendment that BANS ALL GUNS. According to you you MUST obey this Amendment as it’s a state right to take your guns & forbid you from owning them as this is of the will of the people. Yes it violates the Federal Constitution but like gay marriage your rights are whatever we liberals or a bunch of Muslims or atheists say they are correct?

        Reply this comment
      • twist 11 September, 2015, 19:49

        Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters

        Reply this comment
        • sp 11 September, 2015, 21:27

          You do not get to vote away or legislate away people’s rights.

          Reply this comment
        • dancerboots 12 September, 2015, 00:40

          The Kentucky Constitution
          Section 3
          Men are equal — No exclusive grant except for public services — Property not to be exempted from taxation — Grants revocable.

          public service is excluded from the ‘men are equal’ phrase
          i.e. Kim Davis relinquished her equal rights despite her declaration her religious rights should be respected. She is acting as a voice and representative of the government that must remain neutral when it comes to religion.
          1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
          ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’

          Reply this comment
  82. Fern 11 September, 2015, 15:28

    Mrs. Davis took an Oath, too.

    Reply this comment
    • RichS 11 September, 2015, 17:08

      Davis is violating her oath. Bunning is upholding his oath.

      Oath Keepers wants to protect Davis from Bunning? It’s an upside down world.

      Reply this comment
      • David Parker 11 September, 2015, 19:34

        Davis was sworn into office in January of this year, before the Supreme Court illegally invented this “right” out of thin air (which happened in June) that forces Christians to violate their religious beliefs and turns them into second-class citizens.

        Reply this comment
        • Jessica74 11 September, 2015, 20:06

          Nobody, but Christians, are trying to turn anybody else into second class citizens. It’s those so-called Christians whom want to take away rights from anybody who doesn’t believe exactly as they do. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. We are not a theocracy but a democracy. I’m sure you’ve heard that before and are just choosing to be willfully ignorant of it. Besides, the reason for her landing herself in jail was because she refused a direct order by a judge. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with her religious affiliation. She was elected to do a job, took an oath, and now because something isn’t to her liking she wants to throw a fit? Of course she won’t step down from her $80k/year salary. Oh no, her moral conviction doesn’t go that deep.

          Reply this comment
          • highflight 13 September, 2015, 02:36

            You should thank your stars that the Christians saved Europe from the Muslims, else there would be no Europe or the Americas and …you would not be having this conversations. Assuming you are a female, additionally you would have no say in public. So maybe instead of exhibiting a foolish lack of tolerance toward Christians, find a good history book. I assume you can read as well as type condescending hate messages. Furthermore, we are a republic, a federation of states, which is not a democracy. So find a good book about that as well.

            MOLON LABE

        • dave 11 September, 2015, 22:40

          I’m pretty sure this was not out of thin air, as you suggest. Discrimination on the basis of sexual preference is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if I’m not mistaken. So that is not ‘out of thin air’. You may disagree, and it’s your right to do so, but equality under the law IS the law, like it or not.

          Reply this comment
        • Voldemort 12 September, 2015, 00:10

          An oath is not static. Davis swore to uphold the Constitution, not uphold the Constitution unless it changes to something she doesn’t like. Arguing otherwise is without honor. The Supreme Court did not “invent this ‘right'”. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment prohibited states from denying marriage to same sex couples, deeming it a civil right. The matter is settled, unless the Constitution is further amended. Davis is the offender here. She attempted to force her religious beliefs on her community. She is absolutely, unequivocally not being denied any right of any nature whatsoever nor is she being forced to violate her religious beliefs. A person of honor would honor her oath or if she will not, resign.

          Reply this comment
  83. steve 11 September, 2015, 15:38

    This is the 1st time ever that the oath keepers are 180 degrees off their mission statement. She is a government official. We have the right to redress the government, which the couple in question did. The judiciary ruled in their favor and entered a lawful court order. She not only failed to comply, she, under color of authority, forced others not to comply. As such, failure to comply with a court order IS a jail-able offense (contempt of court). Its LONG SETTLED law.

    Would you guys have stood with the klan when not allowed blacks integrate in schools?

    Since when is “acting under God’s authority” an exception to the constitution?

    The bible tells us its ok to sell our daughters into slavery. Its against the constitution, but if i act under gods authority, is it ok?

    Reply this comment
    • john m 11 September, 2015, 20:44

      The Federal Government cannot be supreme in a power that was never delegated to it. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, and there is not a single federal marriage license in existence. Marriage has always been a state issue. As such it falls under the 10th amendment. The Supremacy Clause is not carte blanche to let the Feds do anything they want. Otherwise there would be no need for the 9th and 10th amendments at all.

      Reply this comment
      • Liberty Sanders 11 September, 2015, 21:56

        John, marriage IS a state issue. But state laws may not violate the national constitution, and determination of the constitutionality of a state law is a power that IS delegated to the federal government.

        Reply this comment
  84. Liberty Sanders 11 September, 2015, 15:48

    Stewart, I am hoping your silence here last night and today means that you are reconsidering this decision.

    Stewart, you are WRONG. DEAD wrong. 100% Wrong.

    This woman’s rights have NOT been violated. Her incarceration for contempt of court is 100% legal. There are NO due process issues in question here. She went to jail because she DESERVED to go to jail. And if she defies the court again she will deserve to go to jail AGAIN.

    I drove from Indiana to the Cliven Bundy Ranch, which is no joke for a guy my age, and lived out of my car like a desert prospector, because we were RIGHT in that fight and I was willing to risk my rapidly aging butt in defense of the principles involved.

    But Stewart, you are WRONG in this, and if you continue on this course you will do irreparable harm to this organization from which it will NEVER be able to recover. We CANNOT win this and if it comes to a confrontation OK will HAVE to back down.

    We have ALWAYS occupied the high moral ground in every issue in which we have been involved. That is NOT the case here.

    Stewart, BACK OFF from this while there is still time!!!!!

    Reply this comment
    • Jessica74 11 September, 2015, 20:11

      Bravo, sir! Wise words, sage advice. Our family backed you at the ranch. We agreed with your stance and admired your conviction. This feels more like a circus coming to town and muddying up the town with posters. Hope they listen. It’s not a good look. This woman has an agenda and will drag down with her anybody within grasp. If her convictions were so solid, why wouldn’t she walk away from her cushy job and large salary?

      Reply this comment
  85. RichS 11 September, 2015, 16:30

    In the past I have respected what Oath Keepers has done. However, in his case, the organization has gone off the tracks. Unfortunately, this makes Oath Keepers look like any other organization with a political axe to grind.

    Stewart Rhodes argues that Kim Davis did not receive due process. There is no legal support for this argument.

    First and foremost, her refusal to issue marriage licenses was undertaken as an elected government official refusing to perform a sworn duty. Her inaction is not a civil right protected by the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution holds Kim Davis accountable to the people in her official duties. Her assertion of violation of her religious freedom does not extend to her duties as a government official. Quite the opposite. The Constitution guarantees the people protection from her religious beliefs being injected into their lives via the power of her public office.

    Next, the idea that she is entitled to a jury trial. Again, Kim Davis is not acting as a citizen in this matter. She’s the government, and her official acts (or inaction) are not protected by the Bill of Rights as if they are the civil liberties of a private citizen. If you believe otherwise, be careful the next time you argue the 2nd Amendment is not about the state’s ability to arm a militia, rather than for people to choose to arm themselves. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the peoples’ liberty, not the liberty of a government official.

    Further, it seems that Stewart is ignoring the supremacy clause of the Constitution, and that somehow, a Kentucky law that has been nullified by a federal court ruling on the basis of the 14th Amendment, is still entitled to be enforced. We may not always like court rulings, but the validity of a court’s ability to nullify a legislative act is clearly stated in the Constitution, as is the supremacy of the 14th Amendment to state law.

    Finally, the idea that a court can’t hold a government official in contempt, as in this case, for refusing to uphold the law and defying a court order: There is no basis for this view, in either tort or statute. While contempt power can be abused, in this case, it was not. It was reasonably applied to compel a government official to act according to the law. Plenty of legislative and common law support for the court’s order, and absolutely nothing in the Constitution that shields Kim Davis, in her official duties, from that order. In fact, quite the opposite.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 11 September, 2015, 17:59

      “… the supremacy clause of the Constitution” requires that those who serve within the federal government actions or decisions be in Pursuance of the US Constitution.

      This was not, not any part of it, not any part of any decision concerning Gay marriage in the courts.

      Why do I say that?

      Because the decision was based on FOREIGN LAWS/FOREIGN ETC and that is not only NOT lawful of the judges involved, but Treasonous in their action to undermine and destroy the US Constitution.

      This is NOT about the clerk per se, but about the US Constitution, state sovereignty, and our American sovereignty.

      Like the Bundy Ranch was about UN’s Agenda 21 and the destruction of America, the US Constitution, America, Americans, and the USA as a sovereign nation.

      These are actions created to cause dissension and division, but also to do damage to the US Constitution and our sovereignty.

      Reply this comment
      • RichS 11 September, 2015, 19:10

        Cal, sorry, but the matters of law at issue here are within the confines of the U.S. legal system.

        We have a complex society, and our legal system has gown in complexity to match, but this particular matter is not complicated. It’s about the 14th Amendment, it’s supremacy to state law, the right of all citizens to equal protection of the law, and the authority of a federal court to compel a state official to act within the Constitutionally proper scope of the law.

        You can try to stir the pot with UN conspiracy, sovereignty, and vague references foreign law, but there’s no muddy water here at all.

        Reply this comment
        • highflight 13 September, 2015, 03:39

          The XIV amendment refers to individuals. I see no mention of groups, just individual persons.

          Section 1.
          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          Section 2.
          Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

          Section 3.
          No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

          Section 4.
          The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

          Section 5.
          The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

          MOLON LABE

          Reply this comment
      • Ike 11 September, 2015, 19:49

        Cal can you cite Any were in any founding document that the United states is 13 or more sovereign nations? You claim The SCOTUS granted gays rights NOT afforded to them even though the 1st 5th & 14th amendments all passed into law BEFORE 1917 says otherwise? please show me in the Constitution it states “these rights are ONLY for White Male Conservative Christian Fundamentalists”? Please show me ANY amendment that says the bill of rights is ONLY to be granted this one group?

        Reply this comment
  86. Adam G 11 September, 2015, 17:01

    “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 the problem here, isn’t it? You can’t just “believe” things. Nobody who has an even passing knowledge of how our judicial branch works would “believe” this. Believing something is no replacement for actual knowledge.

    Reply this comment
  87. Josh 11 September, 2015, 17:23

    Come on guys. As a currently serving active duty Marine and a supporter of The Oath Keepes I cannot believe they you would go to he defense of this woman.

    Would you go to the defense of a county clerk who refused to issue inter racial marriage licenses? I sure hope not.

    Kim Davis is breaking her oath. I respect this orginaziation a lot but lately you seems ok with picking which parts of the constitution you want to defend or attack.

    Whoever is running this needs to step back and re read their oath. Or they need to change their name.

    Reply this comment
  88. LagunaJim 11 September, 2015, 17:24

    So let’s be crystal-clear: your members intend to physically stop federal authorities from taking Ms. Davis into custody if they come for her – with force if necessary including use of firearms. Have we got this right?

    Reply this comment
  89. Joe 11 September, 2015, 17:25

    Stewart you need to go to lost horizons dot com and see what their doing to Doreen talk about overstepping the constitutional bounds

    Reply this comment
  90. Christine 11 September, 2015, 18:10

    Thank you, Oath Keepers, for doing the right thing and standing up against an out of control judiciary.

    Reply this comment
  91. Bob 11 September, 2015, 18:23

    She as a government employee doesnt decide which part of her job she will and will not do if her religous beliefs prevent her from doing her duties she shouldnt have the job but we all know its garbage just another whiskey tango wanting money and fame and i renounce my membership in the Oath Keepers for blatanly violating the mission There is a seperation of church and state and its for reasons just like this im ashamed at the leadership here i dont need to be a member to honor my oath i am and forever shall be a United States Marine my oath and myself will carry on the true meaning of Semper Fidelis!

    Reply this comment
  92. Lisa 11 September, 2015, 18:38

    Hey OATH Keepers…. Ms. Davis didn’t keep her oath to operate in the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky, she swore that OATH on a BIBLE…. what Oaths are you Keeping?

    Reply this comment
  93. Ted Wright 11 September, 2015, 19:02

    I am a veteran of both the US Coast Guard and the US Army. I’ve served my town for 20 years in a variety of different capacities and I now proudly serve in my state’s Legislature for a second term.

    I firmly believe everyone has the right to follow their heart when it comes to religion. In fact, the Constitution validates that belief, but when following your religion requires that you compel others to bend to your beliefs, the trouble begins and the Constitution loses its power.

    Imagine if you will; if Kim Williams were a Muslim, or a Jew, would we still be having this discussion? I think not, and that is hipocracy. No one has the “right” to force others to follow their moral beliefs. Religious freedom and certain “unalienable rights” have their roots in the Magna Carta which was agreed upon 500 years ago this year. It is well known that these rights are guaranteed to all humanity and any attempt to remove them is a crime against humankind.

    We make statutes in order to control government, not to control people’s spiritual beliefs and our system includes a Supreme Court that since the Marbury v. Madison decision has the power to determine what laws are in line with the Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution according to the Supreme Court then it is wrong and should be removed.

    I believed that Oath Keepers had an honorable cause up to this point. Now, I will take what they have to say with a grain of salt, or not believe them at all, because they obviously are more about Christianity than their (and my) oath to uphold the Constitution…

    Reply this comment
  94. BedRound 11 September, 2015, 19:52

    Do you truly not know that contempt of court and due process are defined in statutes? Oathkeepers needs to consult a lawyer.

    Reply this comment
    • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 20:09

      Bedbound,
      If a statute is NOT in compliance with the Constitution, it is null and void from its inception. The major point that Stewart Rhodes is making is that Contempt of Court orders violate the Right to a Trial by Jury. She has NOT be given a trial concerning the Contempt of Court order. Why? The Constitution gives all Americans the Right to a Jury Trial.

      Reply this comment
      • Liberty Sanders 11 September, 2015, 20:16

        No, Shorty…the Constitution does NOT give all Americans the right to a jury trial. Research it.

        Reply this comment
        • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 21:11

          Are you referring to the $50 threshold?

          Reply this comment
          • Liberty Sanders 11 September, 2015, 21:18

            The Constitution provides for trial by an impartial jury for CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. A citation for civil contempt is not a crime. This distinction is clearly established in our courts at all levels. No crime, no prosecutor, no prosecution. The right to trial by jury does NOT apply.

            If it is not a case of criminality, then why was she jailed. Criminals are sent to jail. Your “distinction” and your stating, “No crime, no prosecutor, no prosecution.” is the crux of the matter. You rely on Court practices to back up your argument. Those “practices”, are what is at issue, here. The denial of a trial by jury, though the Constitution clearly states it is a Right, not to be infringed. No “practice” of the Courts may deny the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

          • Liberty Sanders 11 September, 2015, 21:35

            Shorty…there is no right to a trial by jury for a contempt citation. Your contention that this is a right guaranteed by the Constitution is in error. A person jailed for contempt is not serving a sentence for commission of a crime. This distinction is REAL and no amount of wishful thinking can make it go away.

          • Shorty Dawkins 11 September, 2015, 21:40

            I stand by the Constitution. You wish to pretend it doesn’t exist.

        • Liberty Sanders 11 September, 2015, 21:45

          Shorty, a cow is not a horse. A bible is not an almanac. Words have meanings. If you disregard the meanings communication is impossible. A criminal prosecution is a CRIMINAL prosecution. Davis was jailed because of a lawsuit. The points that are in contention in a lawsuit are not crimes. If they were, the people involved would be CHARGED with crimes. Trial by jury simply does not apply. Read what is IN the Constitution, not what you WISH was in it.

          Reply this comment
      • BenRound 11 September, 2015, 21:50

        Shorty, just look up the Wikipedia entry for Contempt of Court and then look into the federal statutes.

        Your personal interpretation of what you think you remember of the Constitution is flawed.

        If you want to defend the Constitution, you should at least have a lawyer somewhere.

        Reply this comment
  95. harold 11 September, 2015, 19:53

    Legally you wrong, and if you really do your homework on the Bundy situation, history, state and Federal Constitution you will find your understanding and cherry picking parts of the Constitution is in grave error. You always point out Constitutional limits on Federalv government, but never the section describing the limitations of the States. Plus attacking and misstating what Jim Andrews said have cost you creditability to many.

    Reply this comment
  96. BowserUSC 11 September, 2015, 21:08

    The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    You cannot use your position within the United States government to enforce your religious beliefs on a United States citizen. Regardless of your personal beliefs on this issue, the issue has been decided following the framework outlined by the United States Constitution and any changes must be pursued through the legal measures provided by the Constitution. If you help to uphold this violation of the United States Constitution, you are violating your oaths, and forfeit any protections it provides you, including the 2nd amendment.

    Reply this comment
  97. Barbara 11 September, 2015, 22:06

    I am VERY proud of Oath Keepers for stepping in and protecting Kim Davis. People can argue and say that you are wrong in doing so, but I must disagree.
    Our U.S. Constitution was written by Christian men who based our government in BIBLE doctrine. God CONDEMNS homosexuality, and for our federal government to declare gay marriage a ‘Constitutional right’ is nothing short of blasphemy. The majority of the people in this country are AGAINST gay marriage, and many states have their own laws that reflect that. This issue goes A LOT deeper than whether Kim was wrongfully arrested..The gay marriage laws go directly against God AND God’s people. The Bible says that the nation who forgets God will be cursed. The homosexual MINORITY are going to bring curses on this country for all of us if it is allowed to continue.
    The people who are trying to interpret our Constitution wrongfully and say that gay marriage should be legal need to step back and look at it the right way. This nation was founded in the belief in God, and the Bible, and to interpret our Constitution any other way is wrong. No matter what mankind says is right, the bottom line is that GOD will NEVER accept or bless gay unions, regardless of WHAT our laws say about it. In God’s eyes it is ‘an abomination’ and it always will be. Jesus loves everyone, and wants to save them, but sin is still sin, and God will never okay it.
    May God bless you, Oath Keepers, for upholding our Constitution, (in it’s CORRECT interpretation), and standing up against the tyranny.

    Reply this comment
    • RichS 11 September, 2015, 23:26

      Thankfully, the Constitution was written by men who, while they may have been Christian, knew full well what kind of misery ensues when theologists get their clutches around the machinery of a state.

      Hence, the 1st Amendment, which keeps me safe from your religious beliefs, and you safe from mine.

      Reply this comment
    • Voldemort 12 September, 2015, 00:30

      Barbara, how would you like the elected officials in your community to enforce their “deeply held beliefs” in 1 Timothy 2:12: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”, and deny you your right to vote, drive or hold a job?
      How about Exodus 21:20-21? “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” Why aren’t you arguing against the abolition of slavery? After all, the bible endorses slavery all over the place and never, ever denounces it..
      I can cherry pick passages to believe as well as you can.
      This country was founded without a national religion specifically because of a fear of zealots like Davis and her ilk. Do some real homework and free your mind from the crap in the bible.

      Reply this comment
      • Barbara 12 September, 2015, 03:20

        Hi Voldemort,
        Timothy was referring to women within the church, not in society. As far as quoting any Old Testament slavery or other issues, the Bible says that we are to obey the new commandment Christ gave. Love your neighbor as yourself,, and love God with all your heart. If a person loves others as he is supposed to, then he would never even consider forcing someone into slavery.
        Are Christians being ‘unloving’ by refusing to accept gay marriage? No. Sin, in any form. brings separation from God, and brings death. (spiritual and often physical, too.) The Bible says that we are to ‘reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.’ We are never to agree with sin. Jesus loves homosexuals, and He died to pay for their sins, just as He did for the rest of us, but He never accepts sin, no matter what kind it is, and God’s people aren’t to accept it, either.
        BTW, there was a woman judge in the Old Testament, who even led an army into battle, and prophetesses, also. Women’s rights were not as withheld, as you may assume.
        Jesus changed my life when I accepted Him as Savior, and I have experienced the power and love of God in my life. I could never refute God’s word, because I know it’s true. Without the Holy Ghost , it is difficult to understand the Bible, but I recommend the Nelson Standard King James Study Bible. It is quite helpful. After twenty years of studying it, I still don’t know it all, but I’ve got the basics, and a bit more, but even without the Bible, Christ can change a person’s life, and put a new heart within them. (And His love is awesome!)

        Reply this comment
  98. BenRound 11 September, 2015, 22:06

    If a marshal gets killed because an Oath Keeper thinks his personal interpretation of the Constitution trumps 200 years of jurisprudence, then I would hope Rhodes would be jailed and the entire organization would be sued for contributing to the death of a REAL law enforcement officer.

    If you wish to change the law on contempt procedures, at least get an attorney to explain it to you before you rush in with guns.

    Reply this comment
  99. dave 11 September, 2015, 22:57

    Mrs. Davis presumably did take an oath, and presumably also that oath included a vow to carry out her duties under the laws of her state and the United States of America. Also, under US and most state laws, lower levels of government may not preempt the laws of the higher levels of government. So this is a bit of a problem for me to sort out. It appears that Mrs. Davis is an oath-breaker herself, so to me her situation is one of her own making and not any of my concern.

    I’m pleased however, to see the the irony of Oath Keepers protecting a presumed oath-breaker was not lost on others. At least some of us see that as a problem. So here’s a hypothetical situation and question… Forcible disarmament of citizens has begun. In some town, the LEOs who took that duty are held by a judge and tried for violating the civil rights of the disarmed. Those LEOs are oath-breakers, but they may have been taken into custody and brought before the judge arguably without due process. Who’s side are we on?

    I think we need a clear directive on this kind of issue. Doesn’t protecting oath-breakers from other oath-breakers defeat the purpose of opposing oath-breakers? Is there a hierarchy of officials, by which we would perhaps always oppose the higher of the two levels? Or would we say that tactically letting oath-breakers fight among themselves is to our advantage and we should stay out of the mess until there is one clear winner to oppose? How (and why) do we decide between two (or more) oath-breakers as to which should get our support and which we let twist in the wind?

    I think these are valid questions. And I believe we may live to see the day when it will be necessary to have them decided for the ‘field’ to be able to act quickly. Can we get some discussion, or suggested guidance?

    Reply this comment
  100. WCon 12 September, 2015, 00:05

    This is sad to hear, I am soon to retire from the Army and was seriously considering joining your organization, but I thought it was about defending people’s rights under the Constitution, not their right to be a bigot.

    Reply this comment
    • Barbara 12 September, 2015, 01:26

      The term ‘bigot’ is referring to “a person with strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who think that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.”
      Christians adhere (or are supposed to adhere) to Biblical teaching. God condemns homosexuality, and will punish those who practice. promote, or even accept it. Christians MUST speak out against it, and there is absolutely nothing ‘unreasonable’ about that. What IS unreasonable, though, is the fact that a minority of our populace is being permitted to force this on a so-called Christian nation, expecting Christians to accept the unacceptable. Those are the true bigots. God is the creator of mankind AND marriage. Marriage itself is representative of Christ and the church. His church is referred to as the ‘bride’ of Christ. To claim that two people of the same sex should be referred to as ‘married’ is blasphemy.
      If I am considered a ‘bigot’ because I adhere to God’s laws, then so be it. I’ll stand on God’s side any day, because in the end we will all answer to Him, and be judged.
      You wouldn’t even HAVE a Constitution if it weren’t for godly men who wrote it. The problem comes with those who misinterpret it and try to impose bigoted laws on the rest of us.

      Reply this comment
      • RichS 12 September, 2015, 16:36

        Thankfully, we have the Constitution and the 1st Amendment to protect us from people in government who would force us to adopt yours (or any) views at the point of a gun.

        Reply this comment
        • Barbara 13 September, 2015, 14:17

          Hi Rich,
          Your point is mistaken, because that is exactly what Kim is being forced to DO, at gunpoint. She is being forced to accept ungodly activities, and commit blasphemy against God by putting her name on those licenses. We ARE being forced to accept corruption, and it’s wrong.

          Reply this comment
  101. Oathkeeper 12 September, 2015, 00:39

    Laws, laws, laws…we keep talking about laws…The Supreme court made a ruling not a law. Congress makes laws. The Supreme court makes rulings or decisions based on law. There has been no Federal constitutional amendment passed for either gay marriages or marriage between solely a man and a women. So therefore this is not a Federal issue but a State issue. We do however have many states that did pass a State constitutional law defining marriage solely between a man and a women through congress based upon the majority vote of the people. That’s how a republic suppose works.

    Reply this comment
    • RichS 12 September, 2015, 01:37

      Oathkeeper, you have a fundamental gap in understanding how our legal system works.

      A court ruling is also known as case law. It is a critical part of our legal system, in which courts interpret and apply law (that’s the Constitutionally defined mission of the Judicial branch), from which legal precedents (controlling interpretation of law) are created. Some case law comes from the Supreme Court. For example, I assume you have no problem with District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to possess a weapon for self defense. Or McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.

      The 14th Amendment is clear on the matter of law at hand. It is binding upon the Commonwealth of Kentucky, its legislature, its executives, and government at any level in the state.

      Further, the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any case to which a state is a party in the case.

      IF SCOTUS rules that a law is a violation of the 14th Amendment, the only recourse is to amend the Constitution.

      Cut and dry.

      Reply this comment
      • CT 12 September, 2015, 16:52

        Well said.

        Reply this comment
        • ochavoya 13 September, 2015, 14:31

          Almost on target. The problem is if you have a SCOTUS making decisions that are motivated by special interest or, worst, bribery. I am sure you will not approve any decision of a SCOTUS controlled by a group of oligarchs as we have now: Citizens United?

          Reply this comment
      • Sassi Filly 14 September, 2015, 00:23

        The founder of this organization, not that he need me to mention this fact, is Yale Law educated. So your ignorant presentation of what you THINK are legal matters at hand here either shows whatever law school you allege to have attended, did not teach you very well.
        THE fact revision was already given to the forms is evident the governor, as a law teacher wrote in Washington Post exposing the governor for options he DID have under KY law, shows clearly he lied. OH WAIT..you did not know about that revision did you? Yes the alter of the licenses issued, even the ones in her absence, show very clearly he DOES have power under the ky law as was argued and proven AND due to law passed in 2013 she, even as elected person had every right to ask for reasonable accommodation.
        YET the PARTIAL revision was only done in part to make it look like they gave her a revision why take her name off part of the form and not the rest except to play games. FOR THOSE people who dare think a Judge can endlessly detain someone needs to go live in some other country and leave yesterday. DON’T let the border gate hit you on the way out.
        OBAMA DID NOT WIN HIS CASE to endlessly detain citizens. Scotus ruled clearly it does not apply to American yet the media spun that to sheeple people that it did.
        IF YOU CLAIM you are legally trained, and I too have been to law school, then you are outright an enemy of the nation as it is even WORSE for you to claim to be legally trained to claim a Judge can detain a person without bail, not having jurisdiction being a case in a court above him, and no due process, as a legally normal and allowable thing to do..you are a traitor to Liberty.

        Reply this comment
      • Oathkeeper 20 September, 2015, 01:00

        With all due respect RichS, the very fundamental gap you reference and base your counter point is one of the fundamental reasons why the Supreme court gets away with making unconstitutional rulings and decisions, that is the use of semantics. Whether we call the decision a court ruling or a case law you yourself said it, our legal system suppose to interpret and apply law, congressional law. That’s suppose to be cut and dry. All what the Supreme court had was rulings upon rulings and the 14th amendment as a basis. The fact still remains, that neither the 14th amendment or any other congressional amendment explicitly addresses marriage so therefore there is no clarity of language in any amendment for SCOTUS to rule a law in violation of. In the two cases that you referenced, the Supreme court had the 2nd amendment which has clear language in its amendment to make those proper rulings. So again this issue has and will always be a societal one in which the people in each state itself make a decision through consensus vote. Just like you said, “the only recourse is to amend the Constitution.” Till then, we have an unconstitutional ruling/case law imposed by a branch of government that is not even suppose to enforce laws, that’s also congresses responsibility through legislation.

        Reply this comment
    • BenRound 12 September, 2015, 03:04

      Actually, the Constitution DOES say that all persons are provided Equal Protection under the law, so marriage is not just for heterosexuals only.

      And the Constitution DOES say that federal laws have Supremacy over state laws, so the SCOTUS ruling overrides state laws against gay marriage.

      That’s the system that the states ratified 200 years ago.

      So now, Oath Keepers are prepared to kill US marshals because OK doesn’t have a lawyer to explain to them that the Due Process for Contempt of Court is well established by statute and precedent.

      God save us all from “barracks lawyers” who think the way to make a point is to aim weapons at federal agents. The American people and our duly elected government have put up with your egotistical, ignorant, and dangerous leaders for too long.

      Reply this comment
      • EM 12 September, 2015, 10:57

        I look forward to the US Marshals exterminating this group of right wing-nut terrorists. Make my day, rednecks.

        Reply this comment
        • BobbyG 12 September, 2015, 22:59

          Second the sentiment

          Reply this comment
          • Barbara 13 September, 2015, 16:11

            I think EM’s comments and BobbyG’s comments should be removed because they are name calling, and VERY wrong to boot.

          • Elias Alias 13 September, 2015, 19:57

            Barbara,
            I appreciate your sentiment, and it is unfortunate that EM and BobbyG lack dignity and personal development as human beings. Their hatred was mentally ingested from the spoon-fed banquet served up by the SPLC and their ilk, and now the poor guys find themselves here at our website posting the evidence that they, and the garbage they’ve swallowed, are rotten with hate. Their comments certainly cannot be construed as having originated from Love’s thought system, that’s for sure.

            However, I’m going to let their comments stand because their ad hominem attack is not directed against any particular person posting here. Instead, they are attacking the whole group, which they are free to do. Here is a definition of “ad hominem”.

            “An ad hominem argument is one that is used to counter another argument; but, it is based on feelings or prejudice, rather than facts, reason or logic. It is often a personal attack on one’s character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand. This type of fallacy can often be witnessed in usage in individual debate, in court or in politics. Often, the attack is based on one’s social, political, or religious views, or is based on lifestyle choices of the person being attacked using ad hominem.”

            That is from here: http://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html

            I would prefer to let their comments stand, for one very good reason. The SPLC has a section of their website called “Hate Watch”. For six years the SPLC has used two examples of deviant behavior by two men whom the SPLC claims were Oath Keepers. (One of them never was a member, and the other was kicked out of Oath Keepers for being a “white-supremacist”. Oath Keepers will not tolerate racism in our ranks, and we will not tolerate violent behavior in our ranks.) Anyway, the SPLC uses those two persons as indicators that Oath Keepers is a “Hate” group. For all the many thousands of Oath Keepers members, most of whom are above reproach, every now and then we’ve seen a rare individual join Oath Keepers and co-exist with us as a member until we discover he is not worthy of our name, at which time we give him the boot. But the SPLC, who has sent lots of people to our site here to sew discontent and falsehood, likes to paint our whole organization, and our mission, as being racist, hateful, anti-government, radical, extremist, and a threat to law enforcement.

            By the SPLC’s system of logic (which is not at all logical as I’m about to illustrate here) Lt. Calley of the infamous My Lai incident in Viet Nam in 1968 is proof that our U.S. Army is a bunch of murdering soul-less psychopaths and should be disbanded. By the SPLC’s logic, if one or two members in an organization, such as Oath Keepers or the US Army, is psychopathic, then the whole organization must be psychopathic. So SPLC paints Oath Keepers with a very broad brush. They do it because they need someone to attack — the country is fairly-well bored with SPLC’s customary targets such as neo-nazis and KKK groups (which are largely populated by undercover FBI provocateur agents, btw). America knows that the sick, warped, and dangerous handful of extremists in those groups are too impotent, have too few members, and lack the power to do much of anything these days, and that such extremist groups are not sufficient grounds to keep supporting the SPLC with donations. To remedy that waning perception of uselessness by the public, SPLC immediately attacked Oath Keepers before we could even incorporate as an organization back in 2009. SPLC was hungry for a new target to justify their existence, and we became their target of choice. Their spies are among us day and night. Their spies subscribe to our email lists. Their spies infiltrate our operations. They love to make a mountain out of any molehill they chance to encounter. The SPLC sends people here to distract readers from our mission, to distort our purpose, and to discourage people from supporting us. It’s a sort of psychological operation.

            By allowing the comments in question above to remain on our site, I am simply furnishing a bit of “blowback” for the overall attack by the SPLC. Ad Hominem deception and psychological treachery are the trademarks of the SPLC, and they also love to embellish their attacks by a truly wicked mental trick called “association”, in which they create a paragraph which discusses KKK or Nazis in the first sentence or two, then associates those despicable groups with Oath Keepers by including an innocuous statement about Oath Keepers, then close the paragraph with more verbiage on KKK and Nazis. “Association” — it’s one of the SPLC’s favorite weapons, but it fails once a reader knows to look for the tactic. By allowing the comments to remain here, I’m just reversing the SPLC’s tactics. I do so on the old hippy premise that “What goes ’round comes ’round”. ‘Tis true, ’tis true. 😉

            Salute!
            Elias Alias, editor

      • Moman 12 September, 2015, 20:14

        REALLY!? where does it say this BenRound? where does it say FEDERAL LAWS have Supremacy over STATE laws?
        what article? what section? what bill of rights amendment? last I checked the amendments actually GAVE state SOVEREIGNTY to make their own laws, even in direct contention with federal. the fed penalizes this with reduced money to the states, but so what?

        you need to go back to class, and re-read the constitution, including the 10nth and 14nth amendments.

        the only part I am in agreeance with you on is provided equal protection under the law. and that is it.

        also I suggest you re-read history, the SCOTUS is NOT suppose to be the final arbiters int he constitutionality of a law, WE THE PEOPLE ARE.

        Reply this comment
        • Bob Eckert 13 September, 2015, 01:34

          ” where does it say FEDERAL LAWS have Supremacy over STATE laws?”
          Article VI, section 2: “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” The language is not ambiguous.

          “the amendments actually GAVE state SOVEREIGNTY to make their own laws” Since the 14th Amendment, the states do not have the right to make laws which do not apply equally to all citizens.

          “the SCOTUS is NOT suppose to be the final arbiters int he constitutionality of a law, WE THE PEOPLE ARE” If every individual makes up his own interpretation of the laws and the constitution, there is no law. That is why judges exist, and Article III does indeed give this job to the Supreme Court.

          Reply this comment
        • BenRound 13 September, 2015, 15:30

          MOMAN, read the Supremacy clause. We agree that the sovereignty clause allows states to license marriage. In fact, from the 1800s, states forbade whites from marrying minorities until SCOTUS struck that down in 1967. Now SCOTUS has struck down the KY constitution’s ban against gay marriage. Like it or not, SCOTUS is the final arbiter.

          Reply this comment
        • Justice&Liberty4ALL 13 September, 2015, 18:22

          In this little thing in the Constitution called THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. I find it highly ironic that the majority of whacko RWNJs who jump up and down about defending the Constitution when it’s about something they have a dog in the race for ( ie. GUNS ), etc…. have clearly NEVER actually READ the entire Constitution and haven’t a CLUE what’s in it, or even how this gov’t works. I suggest a number of items you should ALL read…. THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE / RELIGIOUS EXERCIZE CLAUSE, the SUPREMACY CLAUSE and the NO RELIGIOUS TEST CLAUSE. Then you all need to go and read the TREATY OF TRIPOLI where it CLEARLY states that we are IN NO WAY FOUNDED UPON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ( and that, even though attributed to John Adams, was actually written by GEORGE WASHINGTON).

          Reply this comment
        • Fern 14 September, 2015, 20:20

          where does it say FEDERAL LAWS have Supremacy over STATE laws?
          what article? what section?
          **************************

          Article VI, Section 2. Do you have any tougher questions?

          Reply this comment
  102. rob 12 September, 2015, 02:14

    I spent 20 in the USAF i am now a constable who keeps getting asked by the oath keeps to join in Pa. I say no thanks I dont support the political agenda of the oath keepers. The courts ruled and the oath keeps would have no problem going into kentucky and shooting it out with the US marshalls. You are no different than any other anarchist group who thinks they are the law. This woman in Kentucky did many things wrong. Swearing to up hold the state and US constitution being the main one. So she refuses which means she lied to god by swearing should would to god. Sorry as a public elected official she had an obligation to the electorate first. She is a pathetic example being married four times. Yeah god loves a serial bride Oath keeps supports it I dont

    Reply this comment
    • Barbara 12 September, 2015, 05:09

      Hi Rob,
      Any person who is a REAL Christian has their first obligation ALWAYS to God. The Bible says that we are to obey man’s laws, but not if they contradict God’s laws. Kim was doing exactly what God commands her to do. I’m sure that she would have done her duty, and probably always did do her duty up to the point of asking her to go against God, and commit a blasphemous act. I’m proud of her for standing up and saying NO, I won’t do that. I’m sure that God Himself is proud of her, too. It’s about time that God’s people stand up and say enough is enough. This nation was founded in the firm belief in God, and we need to keep it that way!
      As far as her number of marriages, that is between her and God. She may have Biblical reasons for divorce, and yes, God does allow divorce for certain reasons, but that has nothing to do with what is happening with this.

      Reply this comment
      • mtjsr 12 September, 2015, 07:46

        “This nation was founded in the firm belief in God, and we need to keep it that way!” No, it was not. This nation was founded in the belief of the rights of man, the freedom from tyranny and the separation of church and state. Our founding fathers feared and loathes the dogma of religion and the tyranny of those who believed themselves ordained by God, free to do whatever actions they wished. Davis had no right to deny services based on her own religious belief. She did however have the right to resign. She took an oath to get that position. She broke it. Odd that there should be any discussion on a site titled “Oath Keepers”.

        Reply this comment
        • Grimm 12 September, 2015, 16:54

          Only one of the Founding Fathers made a reference to separation of church and state, granted he wrote the constitution, in a letter not the Constitution.

          Reply this comment
          • OPFORjim 12 September, 2015, 21:36

            Treaty of Tripoli

            “Art. 11. 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 tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) 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.”

            It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

      • osoleg 12 September, 2015, 23:53

        Barbara – no, this country wasn’t religiously founded. Read the Treaty of Tripoli 1787. It was founded on the separation of church and state. Nothing was taken from the supposedly good book when drafting the bill of rights or the constitution. [Three sentences deleted by Elias Alias, editor. Attack ideas all you wish, but let’s not attack people please.]

        Reply this comment
        • Grimm 13 September, 2015, 06:51

          Treaties are still not the Constitution, and when hasn’t the government broken, lied or ignored a treaty?

          Reply this comment
        • Barbara 13 September, 2015, 15:39

          This nation was founded by men who believed in God and used the BIBLE as a foundation for the documents they wrote. Go to this website.
          http://rense.com/general44/sdsbi.htm It is titled Ten Commandments And Bible Verses All Over DC. And they ARE, though the liberals and homosexuals and all far left would have you believe differently.
          A quote from that site,”James Madison, the fourth president, known as the “Father of Our Constitution” made the following statement, “We have staked the whole of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of GOD.””
          Another quote from that site,” Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said,”It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not by religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.””
          Every session of Congress begins with a prayer to God, since 1777!!
          How can anyone deny that this country was founded in the firm belief in GOD? Apparently you who deny this fact need to do your homework better, and maybe visit Washington and see for yourselves that God and His word IS the foundation of this country.

          Reply this comment
          • Liberty&Justice4ALL 13 September, 2015, 18:49

            NO it wasn’t. The actual FIVE Founders were 4 DEISTS (Franklin, Madison, Adams, Jefferson) and 1 ATHEIST ( Paine) They were students of the Enlightenment. NOT Christians. ILLUMINATI ( Enlightened Ones ) rejected Christianity and it’s dogma. Also just because someone is religious does NOT mean that they believe religion should be part of gov’t. Since it was MY great grandfather Roger Williams who originated the entire concept of ” the Wall of Separation ” that notion is 100% FALSE. Roger Williams was deeply religious and also the very first Baptist preacher in the Colonies, who founded the First Baptist Church. HE created the very first 100% SECULAR government. The VERY model upon which the Founding Fathers based the creation of this nation. The Constitution was almost ENTIRELY based upon Thomas Paine’s best selling literary work The Age of Reason.

            I suggest you start doing some actual research/ reading and quit swallowing the RW propaganda because you are 1000% WRONG about the foundations of this country.

          • Baruch 13 September, 2015, 19:50

            Barbara you are reading revisionist history. The bible was not a basis for the US Constitution, in fact the opposite. The founders were deists but most were not christians. I know you want desperately to believe that what you’ve been taught is true, but it isn’t. You have been lied to.

            Also please notice that you are arguing for inequality, for bigotry to be the law of the land. Why would you argue FOR inequality? How far back do you want to turn the clock, Jim Crow? Pre suffrage? Slavery?

            It is sad, Barbara, that so many people like you have been brainwashed to believe that they have the right to force their religion on others. You don’t.

          • GreggJ 20 September, 2015, 16:26

            Sorry Barbara, it looks like you are the one who needs to do her homework. The problem with taking websites at face value without doing any subsequent research on your own is that this country has ended up with woefully misinformed and mislead folks.

            Patrick Henry never said that. The quote you are referring to was from his will, and did NOT include the reference to christianity. That was added by the author of an article in 1956 and the reference to christianity was in the authors comments. Unfortunately, the addition is now routinely included in the quote and attributed to Henry.

            As far as the James Madison quote, that appears nowhere in his writings or transcripts of anything he said, and contrary to what you may think, he was a very strong supporter of the separation of church and state.

            Congress does indeed pay a chaplain (since 1789) to open sessions with prayer and to provide spiritual counseling and guidance to members and their staff who request it, but again, James Madison strongly opposed the practice. Madison wrote “The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?”
            He continued on, “[If] it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense.”

        • DefenderofSOC&S 13 September, 2015, 18:36

          Exactly. Actually there were only 5 Founding Fathers involved in the creation of the Constitution…. Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin and Paine. Granted Jefferson is the one who penned it but the Constitution itself was almost entirely based on Paine’s works, especially from the book The Age of Reason. All 5 of these men were students of The Enlightenment. They were the very first of the elite ILLUMINATI ( Enlightened Ones). They REJECTED religion and it’s dogma and the tyranny it invoked. They put on grand FACADES of “christianity” in public because at that time they themselves would have been called out as heretics ( which they WERE ). The other MAJOR influence in the creation of this government was Freemasonry….which is absolutely NOT based in Christianity. The premise for creating this nation as a REPUBLIC instead of a DEMOCRACY was to avoid TYRANNY of the MAJORITY and to provide a SECULAR NATION where every man was free to exercise LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE or SOUL LIBERTY, the concept originating 137 yrs earlier when my 12th Great Grandfather ROGER WILLIAMS founded Rhode Island as a haven for those being persecuted for their non-Puritan beliefs. He believed that every person had the god-given right to believe ( or NOT) according to their conscience and that religion had no place within the State and must be entirely separated from government. Rhode Island went on to become the very first SECULAR government in the free world and is the very model upon which the United States was built… the Founding Fathers all having been great admirers and students of Williams literary works.

          Reply this comment
          • Barbara 13 September, 2015, 22:30

            You folks are out in left field on this, sorry. Visit the website I listed above. Also, according to WIKI, it says of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and 2 were Roman Catholic. Among the Protestant delegates, 28 were Church of England, (or Episcopalian), 8 were Presbyterian, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 Lutheran, 2 Dutch Reformed and 2 Methodists. Diests had a firm belief in God, but didn’t accept Christ, and they were a minority to say the least.
            The founders believed in GOD, but spoke against any ‘one’ state religion. They understood that there were many different religions, and they wanted everyone to have a CHOICE on how they worshipped GOD. It wasn’t a matter of whether there WAS a GOD or not, because they DID believe in GOD, and our capital buildings reflect that, too, just as the opening prayer to GOD before every session of Congress, and the Ten Commandments and Bible verses engraved in the buildings. I realize you leftists would love to remove all evidence of our Christian Heritage, but you can’t change the facts.
            The whole issue of the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ came about because of a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, to comfort and reassure them that they were not going to be forced under a state religion. Read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson never said or implied that people shouldn’t HAVE a belief in God. This phrase has been twisted and used by our government and those who want to remove GOD entirely from our system, and that was never how it was intended at all. Jefferson was merely telling the Danbury Baptists that the state was not going to tell them HOW to worship GOD, or force another religion on them. The phrase was never intended to remove the EXISTENCE of God in our government at all. If that were the case, why would there be prayer before every Congress session? Why would the Ten Commandments and Bible verses be engraved all over our capital? Why would our currency say, “In GOD we trust?” And why would our Pledge of Allegiance contain the words “ONE NATION UNDER GOD”? I’m sorry folks, but our forefathers built this country having a firm belief in GOD, whether you like it or not.
            Go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts titled “The Origin of “Separation of Church and State”‘ (good article)

      • hal 22 September, 2015, 22:53

        Jesus said in read, that anybody who divorces and remarry is committing adult also mentioned in the 10 commandments. And she had no guilt signing that marriage certificate. I do not like it but she is in a worse situation than the gays

        Reply this comment
  103. mtjsr 12 September, 2015, 03:01

    What is Oath Keepers about? Wasn’t Kim Davis a government official using her position to violate the rights of others? I like e the whole concept of Oath Keepers, but you’re wrong on this one. Any gov. employee has the obligation to conduct the business and services of the government. She should have requested an accommodation or resigned if she didn’t want to perform the duties she swore to.

    Reply this comment
    • Echo 12 September, 2015, 12:46

      Agreed, she did not discriminate since she refused everyone I also believe when she started this was not an issue. However I think it became a matter of pride by not asking reassignment.

      Reply this comment
    • OnyxQueen 13 September, 2015, 06:24

      This is the problem with your position as I see it. I was a Calif. Court clerk for nearly 15 years and when I hired on, I (as I am sure Ms. Davis did) i took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States AND The Constitution of my state against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In Calif. that wouldn’t be a problem but in Kentucky, the State Constitution states specifically that it is unconstitutional to issue licences, marry or recognize unions of anything other than couples consisting of one man and one woman. You see, she is caught in a catch 22. Until something is done about the clashing of the state and federal constitutions, there will be a problem.

      Reply this comment
      • Liberty&Justice4ALL 13 September, 2015, 19:28

        SUPREMACY CLAUSE… READ IT, LEARN IT. Federal law trumps the laws of ALL states. Once SCOTUS ruled that all discriminatory laws on the books in all 50 states were UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they all, as of that moment became NULL & VOID. Period. Even though the States didn’t bother or take the time to remove them from the books… they were NO LONGER VALID or ENFORCEABLE. End of story. She broke the law…. FEDERAL law, and the refused to comply when ordered to do so and so then was JUSTLY ARRESTED for contempt and JUSTLY held w/o bail as CONTEMPT warrants NO BAIL.

        Reply this comment
        • Shorty Dawkins 14 September, 2015, 03:14

          Interesting. So, by your reasoning, the States which have passed laws allowing the use of marijuana have violated the law. Should judges in all those States issue Citations for Contempt of Court, and have everyone arrested and thrown in jail for indeterminate sentences?

          Shorty

          Reply this comment
          • Fern 14 September, 2015, 20:23

            No, but if the Feds wanted to arrest citizens smoking pot on federal charges they could.

      • mtjsr 14 September, 2015, 17:21

        But going back to my original question, ‘what is oath keepers’, Kim Davis is the gov official denying rights and services to the population. I was under the impression that oath keepers was founded to protect the population from such bullshit. Instead they offer to send people to protect her from arrest. You can’t have it both ways. Is oath keepers only interested in providing protection to those the founder happens to agree with? Or, was it founded to protect all from a government gone wrong and it’s arrogant officials like Davis. In this case it didn’t follow it’s own mission statement, and to flip flop is to loose credibility.

        Reply this comment
    • John 13 September, 2015, 15:46

      The establishment clause is an important part of the Constitution, she broke it, the Oathkeepers who side with her are breaking their oath to the Constitution and not keeping it.

      Reply this comment
  104. Enoch 12 September, 2015, 03:57

    What is the oath? Can I see it so I can decide whether or not to join?

    Reply this comment
  105. JODY SMITH 12 September, 2015, 04:27

    Kim Davis has no right to refuse marriage license to gay couples on religious grounds. They are not following there on Bible or Doctrine “To obey the law of the land” new and old testament, there are only 11 law’s or commandments. First are the ten commandments from God and second is the one from Jesus Christ John15:12 and “the law of the land” das not conflict with God’s Law’s.

    Reply this comment
    • praharin 6 October, 2015, 21:34

      If there’s one thing I learned from this whole Kim David thing, it’s that religious convictions only apply when they are in agreement with your agenda. All others are negotiable. I was honestly considering the Oath Keepers as a decent organization. The whole paranoia about drone strikes put me off last summer, but I was nearly ready to forgive that. They have a good premise, but defending a woman who wants to take another person’s rights away? That is over the line. I will not stand for it. I will speak out against any such behavior when I see it. Semper Fi.

      Reply this comment
  106. Mespo727272 12 September, 2015, 04:38

    Here’s the scenario options: Kim defies the judge and her oath yet again. You guys play army and surround her to prevent her arrest. The U.S. Marshal Service shows up with overwhelming force (aided by the National Guard, if needed) to take our little homophobe back into custody. Do you stage another Ruby Ridge with predictable results, negotiate your own release and leave Miss Kimmy alone in the street or turn tail and run only to be rounded up later and arrested yourselves? In any scenario, you lose except the one where you offer to protect her knowing full well she’ll turn you down and you then declare victory. Bravo, you get the all hat but no cattle award for PR.

    Reply this comment
  107. Liberty Sanders 12 September, 2015, 04:48

    Stewart Rhodes must the thanking his lucky stars that Kim Davis’ legal team saved his ass on this.

    Reply this comment
  108. Ellie 12 September, 2015, 10:49

    It’s unfortunate that you are standing down, I was looking forward to a confrontation where your rightwing terror group would be exterminated by US Marshals.

    Reply this comment
  109. John 12 September, 2015, 13:53

    She as a representative of the government violated the establishment clause of the Constitution , you should be opposing her and not coming to her defense if you are truly keeping your oath to defend the Constitution.

    Reply this comment
  110. Rob 12 September, 2015, 21:21

    If the goose stepping “Supreme Court” said slavery was once again ok, as long as no one dies, how would you left wingers respond?? WHAT would you do??

    The court declared itself powers it was NEVER intended to have in a VERY self-serving supreme court decision. That does NOT give them the right to take away someone’s faith!!

    And as far as I’m concerned “religious freedom” in IN the constitution, and even though it can NEVER be in our law, you should NEVER be jailed for it!!

    [Ten words deleted by Elias Alias, editor] Long Live the Oath Keepers!!

    I’m ready to die to defend my freedom, and if your not there is more wrong with you then there is with me.

    Reply this comment
    • Fern 14 September, 2015, 20:27

      And as far as I’m concerned “religious freedom” in IN the constitution, and even though it can NEVER be in our law, you should NEVER be jailed for it!!

      ******************************************************************************
      So a Christian firefighter can just let the house of a gay couple burn to the ground because saving them would be offensive to their religious beliefs which say that the sinners will burn?

      Reply this comment
  111. Stoptheinsanity 13 September, 2015, 02:59

    Your rights as an individual to practice your faith or belief in a religion end the moment those religious beliefs, ideals, or agenda encroach upon the freedoms of another American. I’m an American. I follow the Constitution. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution for a reason. This women was an elected official there to work for the people. Do your job. If you don’t abide by our laws, you’re a criminal. If you don’t agree with our laws, our government…be heard and vote. If you lose, you’re in the minority. Rise up against other Americans because you’re upset you lost the vote, you’re a traitor going against our constitution.

    Reply this comment
    • LexMorpheus 15 September, 2015, 21:40

      “Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution for a reason.” Hey Stoptheinsanity, where in the Constitution is it.? I’ve been looking for the past 7 hours and still cant find it!

      Reply this comment
  112. Sir Harry 13 September, 2015, 05:38

    Islam is invading not just the US. They are invading the world. Why? Why are they able to practice their faith in our schools but Christians can’t? Why are they allowed to practice their laws in their courts in our land? If we abuse our children or wives we go to jail They can punish their children and wives by beatings without ramifications but if we do the same as Christians that it is domestic violence. If this is not happening in our country then the media is not telling the truth. I swore an oath to protect my country from foreign or domestic enemies. Do we have domestic enemies? Are they in our congress. Are they now in our neighborhoods hiding behind our constitution? If I am wrong then would someone enlighten me to the real truth…

    Reply this comment
  113. Liberty Sanders 13 September, 2015, 15:29

    Harry, Muslims living in the US are subject to exactly the same laws that you are, and if they beat their wives and children they are committing domestic violence and are subject to arrest and prosecution, same as you.

    Reply this comment
  114. JD Slappy 13 September, 2015, 17:32

    Don’t do it guys, you are on the wrong side on this one.

    Reply this comment
  115. Barbara 14 September, 2015, 04:01

    Hi Elias Alias,
    Thanks for explaining things to me. I’ve known of and respected the Promise Keepers for years, but I’m new to this site. I’ve talked to Richard Mack before, about some political issues, and that’s how I learned of Promise Keepers. I hold great admiration for your group, and your cause. Keep up the good work!
    I do sympathize with you about the hate filled guys harassing you and this site.It was smart of you to leave their hateful comments, because it truly does make them look bad..LOL!! Shows their true colors, that’s for sure..if black is a color, I’d say that’s a good description of their hearts. They need Jesus to shine some light in there for them, so they can see the truth.
    You have a great day!

    Reply this comment
  116. Barbara 29 September, 2015, 17:56

    To me, the bottom line is that a corrupt judge decides to ‘OKAY’ gay marriage, and ‘AGAINST; the full intentions of our forefathers who wrote the Constitution decides that HE KNOWS BETTER HOW TO INTERPRET IT..these Oath Keepers, in their defense of Kim WERE UPHOLDING the ORIGINAL intent of our US CONSTUTION. The judge who did this should be removed from office, because he is totally and completely WRONG, and as far as I’m concerned, shouldn’t have the authority of his office, and neither should the judge that Kim was seen in front of, either. I still say good job Oath Keepers.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*