Oathkeepers offer to protect Kim Davis from LEOs
The military-like faction of the Ron Paul movement, Oathkeeper, led by Stuart Rhodes, a former Ron Paul Congressional staffer, had pledged to protect Kim Davis, that county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, from any officers who might come to arrest her again, according to their website;
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.
From Right Wing Watch;
In a phone call with Jackson County, Kentucky, Sheriff Denny Peyman and other local Oath Keepers activists…Rhodes said that the Rowan County sheriff should have blocked U.S. Marshals from detaining Davis, but since neither the sheriff nor the state’s governor will do their “job” and “intercede” on behalf of Davis, the Oath Keepers will have to do it instead. “As far as we’re concerned, this is not over,” he said, “and this judge needs to be put on notice that his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to. If the sheriff, who should be interceding, is not going to do his job and the governor is not going to do the governor’s job of interceding, then we’ll do it.”
While I agree that Davis shouldn’t have been jailed, I don’t think the answer is to send a platoon of phonies and pretenders decked out in tacti-cool-gear and Oakleys marching around with scary black guns outwardly threatening LEOs.
Category: Oath Keepers
Fruit Loops
Hope you have your Paulian filters on. Whenever that name is mentioned, they gravitate towards the web site that dare mentions his name like cockroaches.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. We haven’t had a decent chew-toy in ages! 😀
Well nothing can go wrong here.
I spent two hours pondering this, looking at it from all angles, and I agree with your conclusion, 3E9.
Lots of things go wrong but don’t get covered.
Considering the coverage it got for a gay couple in OH to drive all the way to KY for the only clerk that wouldn’t appease them was on every network, but a Hispanic in a sanctuary city of San Fran caught on video tossing 8yo white girl Madelyn who he raped to death didn’t get any(during Cecil the lion coverage)
4 couples sued. 2 straight, two gay. She stopped issuing marriage licenses to everyone as a protest.
Two things come to mind here.
1. Davis, if you don’t like a law, change it, don’t break it. You’re going to have blood on your hands, and standing and squalling that you never meant for it to go that far isn’t going to do much good for dead people who decide to carry the fight into the streets ON YOUR BEHALF.
2. Davis, if you have to make a choice between your public job and your religion, and you choose your religion, then get the fuck out and let somebody else do the job. You have the right to practice your religion until it interferes with my ability to live my life, and then there’s going to be a brawl. What you’re doing is no different than all the Muslims who come over here and tell me I have to live a certain way to make them happy. BULLSHIT. To both them and you, I say this: YOU ARE THE REASON PEOPLE ARE TURNING AGAINST RELIGION — or at least, the violent, desert born types.
“You have the right to practice your religion until it interferes with my ability to live my life”
Be careful, might make too much sense. 🙂
It drives me absolutely nuts to see people like her in public. In three verses of that bible of hers that she likes to thump, I could put her into a full-blown shrieking meltdown with her holier-than-thou garbage.
Let me at her! I’d show her what speaking in tongues really looks like!
The cynic in me can’t help but notice that most of these blowhard types are late to the Jesus party in their lives. Well maybe I shouldn’t say most but a lot.
Reminds me of a quote from one of the greats. “I think I’ll go for the life of sin, followed by a prestochangeo deathbed repentance.”
Instead of being their strength, their religion is their crutch. They’re spiritual cripples; unable to inspire, they only hinder.
…and just to keep things honest, I think there need to be quotation marks around my last comment. I’m not absolutely sure, but some part of that is scratching at the back of my mind — I think I picked it up in my readings somewhere.
The curse which lies upon marriage is that too often the individuals are joined in their weakness rather than in their strength – Simone de Beauvoir. Nicely modified.
I’m stealing your paragraph to use in conversation and pass it off as my own.
Just thought I’d let you know
🙂
There is no law, the Supremes passed a ruling to permit same sex marriages. Only congress can write laws. Even if they did KY should make its own version of Sanctuary Cities. What is really funny is that feminists have tried to slut shame the clerk by bringing up her marriages.
Do you know what else wasn’t a law? Loving v. Virginia (1967). Are you saying that it would have been fine for an Alabama Probate Judge or Circuit Clerk to deny a license to an interracial couple before the state’s constitution was formally changed in 2000?
He won’t answer this question.
On top of that 2 of the supremes should have recused themselves because they previously performed gay marriages, but leftist judges never seem to.
So the Oathkeepers are willing to protect someone unwilling to abide by the oath of her office – you know, the part where she faithfully serves ALL of the people in her county.
Look real hard and you might see my surprised face.
Oathkeepers or Oathbreaker Accessories?
The leftists have let their mask slip here. There is no doubt that they want to live/let live or have tolerance. Feminists have slut shamed this woman. Twitter is full of bile towards her, but when it comes to sanctuary cities an 8yo white girl raped to death by a Hispanic and San Fran leftists argue he is too stupid to get the death penalty.
Do you mean AJ Gonzalez from this case? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/us/boy-15-is-charged-with-murder-in-killing-of-madyson-middleton.html?referrer=&_r=0
Not sure what that case has to do with Kim Davis, but there’s probably a good reason people mention her previous marriages/divorces/marital infidelity, and it’s because she is acting hypocritically by denying gay couples the right to “harm” the sanctity of marriage as much as she has (at least, according to her own religion that she supposedly follows).
Good point. Although we could probably do without the latest static about her husband(whatever) beating her.
and let’s not forget she is a life long Democrat. well maybe not anymore, but she is….
“Feminists have slut shamed this woman.”
-Married 4 times.
-Had kids with one future husband while married to another man.
-Married the same man twice.
Nothing to be ashamed of there. Nope.
She’s just not a very careful shopper. 🙂
I don’t even consider myself religious, but I don’t think people should be able to get divorced. You swear an oath for life when you marry, and you should be held to that oath. 50% of marriages end in divorce. The fact that you can even get divorced and remarried makes the whole process of marriage a sham.
It’ll be interesting to see how that statistic changes now that a marriage doesn’t even need a woman.
I don’t necessarily think divorce is a bad thing or some moral failing. Multiple divorces in the span of a few years…that may be pushing it.
I’m just shocked she found several guys to marry her! She’s ass end of a dog ugly!
Maybe Trump was talking about her…
That ferret-headed, shitslurping, cockbag has no place calling ANYONE ugly! I often wonder if that dumb fucker has a mirror.
She has no right to use her office to discriminate. Laws have been passed, and courts have upheld them. If she has a beef with the law she can RESIGN.
She can then use all of her off time to read her bible.
Well to be fair no law, at least in Kentucky, has been passed in their favor. The courts have just said the existing laws(or the potential for)outlawing homosexual marriage are unconstitutional.
Agree about the Bible though, handful of divorces, few out of wedlock kids. It’s easy to be high and mighty when you pick and choose what you respond to.
The hypocritical twunt swore an oath to uphold not just KY law, but also federal law. She says as much in her legal brief.
Before taking office as Rowan County clerk, Davis swore an oath to support the
Constitutions and laws of the United States and Kentucky “so help me God.”
She affirmed that her oath meant that she was to uphold the federal AND state constitutions and laws.
She violated her oath and needs to go away.
I agree, just not that she’s violating any KY laws necessarily. Court orders all over the place that may as well be law but no written law.
The point being one can see how she could have had an initial leg to stand on….maybe. Had she stuck with that defense she may not have landed in jail.
KY law doesn’t matter at this point, it is null and void under the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment if it interferes with Federal law, and yes SCOTUS decisions are the law of the land.
I think you are taking the phrases law of the land a little too literally. Rulings aren’t law, they are opinions of existing laws. They carry much of the same weight in reality but there is a distinction much the same way her being jailed wasn’t for ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, it was for ignoring a federal court who ordered her to comply with the Supreme Court. Sounds like a distinction without a difference of course.
Had she made her refusal about the existing law maybe she would have been able to stay out of jail a bit longer then she did. As of today she isn’t back at work so maybe a few days locked up taught her a lesson.
I meant this more to say that those who claim she swore only to uphold the KY Constitution are wrong. She swore to uphold both federal and state laws.
Yep. Read Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution…
No dueling allowed either.
Damn. No dueling? Shit.
Ah, the Oathkeepers. You can count on them to be on the wrong side of pretty much any issue.
Basically a buncha wannabe commandos and shit house lawyers.
I view them as the characters you’d see in a bookstore wearing military camo reading a copy of “Soldier of Fortune” with a scowl on their face thinking it makes them look like an intimidating badass, the beer-bellied trailer court M’litia types!
I read Playboy Magazine, for the articles.
Not me I like the pictures of tittties…
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.
Never 🙂
Nah they only WISH they could be as badass as Fred Thompson (an ACTUAL, as opposed to shit-house lawyer, BTW.)
Oh, I can just see it now: the hippies lining up to protest the Ronulans and the Pauletariat, sticking flowers into their rifle barrels, singing ‘Age of Aquarius’ and blowing smoke from a joint at the Oafkeepers.
Man, that takes me back.
Ryan and Marco Ramius, we need you now!
What’s sad about this situation is that there are so many loud opinions on both sides and the only halfway informed ones I’ve heard are from the heart of the heartland at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/?postshare=851441865321894 and in a brief statement from Rand Paul.
But back on topic, I was just saying at dinner last night that the place is looking more and more like Ferguson. . .
She was using her office to try to force other people to live by her religious beliefs.
The “Oathkeepers” should be protecting Americans from people like her.
Actually, the Oathkeepers should just fade away. Neither Americans nor American civil liberties are any safer with the “Oathkeepers” around.
There are a lot of groups out there like that.
Lars. I agree with your statement, Holy Cow !!!!!!!
the Great Lars is back Lol….
“She was using her office to try to force other people to live by her religious beliefs.” No, you nitwit, she wasn’t. She didn’t ask one person to covert or to subscribe to her majority view of marriage as between one man and one woman. The conflict that exists was created by five social engineering lawyers, masquerading as justices of the Supreme Court.
Majority view in Kentucky right?
Majority view in the USA, including Kentucky. In Kentucky, the voters overwhelmingly (75%)approved a state constitutional amendment that read as follows:
“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”
One lawyer–the 5th in the 5-4 gay marriage case–buried that state action.
The latest polls show the majority of the country doesn’t believe gay marriages should be invalid. Unless I’m looking at the wrong polls..
I’m sure some states like KY are the opposite of course.
“The latest polls show…” You lost me right there, Clong.
Well I mean you can’t argue with numbers right? Both the polls and passed laws put the majority firmly in favor.
Perhaps I should say policies instead of laws.
Oh you meant majority view based on the laws, my mistake.
Well no that can’t be right either….
I think the count was 36 states before the ruling allowing same sex marriage.
You think wrong. Do the leg work. It’s readily available. Try Google. Also, do not confuse marriage with domestic partnerships.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-state-by-state/
Weak.
She was forcing people to live according to her beliefs by refusing to allow anyone in the county to get married if that marriage violated her personal interpretation of her religion. The marriage applications were lawful. Her only justification for denying it was her personal religious beliefs. By denying the license she was forcing OTHER PEOPLE to live according to her religious belief claiming it was God’s law. Further, she was refusing to allow her deputies to issue the licenses. Something they had the lawful authority and legal obligation to do but were prevented because she threatened to fire them and falsely claimed they had no lawful right to issue the licenses.
She was wrong. Flat wrong. She was acting as a theocrat. Her actions are literally the definition of a theocrat.
We have a 5-4 conservative court with 5 catholics on it. If there was any way to convincingly justify denying the equal protections of marriage without using religion as justification this court would have found the legal gymnastics do to it. They didn’t because it is unconstitutional to deny the right to marriage to homosexual couples and the ONLY arguments agains it were religious arguments. The best Scalia could come up with is attempt to avoid the responsibility by saying it should be left up to the states. But since the recognition of marriage needs to be able to cross state lines Scalia’s argument is patently absurd.
Last I heard, she asked that her name not be printed on the license, Larsie. So unless I’m misinformed on that, you’re still an asswipe.
Anyway, I can see the judge ordering her suspended from her County Clerk position, even having her removed from office following due process. As much as I generally agree with her opinion on this issue, that would be legal, and I would accept it without necessarily liking it. But the judge didn’t do that. The judge had her locked up on a weak-ass pretense of Contempt of Court, making her a political prisoner. Last time I checked, we don’t do that fascist shit in America.
I guess my point is that both sides of this issue have at least some merit, but you are a sanctimonious fucking idiot who adds nothing to the discussion, as usual.
No judge could remove her from office, that’s a role unique to the legislature through impeachment.
Actually, that’s not the case. That compromise was offered, and she crowed that without her signature those licenses weren’t worth the paper they were printed on!
I see. I stand corrected. I also stand by the fact that Larsy is a fucking idiot.
Nothing I said was incorrect. And you are as ignorant as ever.
Yes. This.
In the news a flight attendant and recent convert to Islam says she can no longer alcohol to people. Its part of her job. Their has been no outrage (not even the Irish). It looks like she is going to be rich suing everybody she can. Other than one being a public employ and the other private what’s the difference they both clam it religious.
And if it REALLY is about religion, there are ways around things that make you uncomfortable. There are probably flights, and possibly carriers, that don’t serve alcohol. It would take an adjustment on her part, but it can be done. Or, while alcohol is being served, arrange to change jobs with one of the other attendants who is willing to serve the alcohol. But she won’t do that, because that isn’t why she’s doing this, you see. She’s ‘making a stand’ to (a) feel all religious and holy, (b) get all the attention she craves, and (c) sue everybody and get her dowery together to give to her future militant jihadi husband/master/owner/rapist.
Or, they could find the Islamist a job in administration, where she doesn’t have to worry about serving alcohol. They could even train her to use the stapler, and copy machine.
Then the sow would likely sue said office demanding apologies for the pork served at their office parties and demand that only halal food be served or some other PC nonsense.
My sister observes her Kosher rules by eating fish or going veg at restaurants.
I don’t know what the problem could possibly be with halal requirements. She could just not eat anything but fruit, you know.
As far as that goes, I won’t eat pork served at a company party unless it’s cured ham or bacon, because while I admire the intellectual prowess of pigs, they are still swine in my eyes.
The excuse would be something like “ohhhh but its on the same table as the other food, so all that food is contaminated!” Along with something like “that’s racist of them, they don’t like muslims!”
Any excuse to get fame and fortune.
As a muslim woman, she shouldn’t even be working. She shouldn’t be going anywhere without her husband or a male relative. She should be at home making babies and cooking food. But that’s not going to get her fame and fortune.
I wouldn’t be surprised if she planned this from the start.
At the end of the day, its a private company. if she doesn’t want to “serve” alcohol, she needs to find another job.
If she’s as devout of a muzzie as she claims to be than she should never leave her abode without being clad in a burka!
Winner, winner, chicken dinner….API.
I don’t know if a transfer to an admin job would work. What if the put her in charge of ordering supplies for the flights, and she refused to do any transactions involving alcohol?
I’m sure there’s a job she could do, that didn’t involve alcohol. Ordering garbage bags. Oops, cancel that one, they put the empty miniature bottles of alcohol in garbage bags.
Maybe she could inventory staplers and copy paper? That seems to be something she’d probably excel at.
Let me be clear, I will say this only once:
“I am 100% Irish and I am totally outraged”!
No one is keeping me from my libations!
I don’t care what they believe!
Any questions?
PS: Stop the Irish Bashing! #IrishLiversMatter
I’m with the Chief. This is blazing saddles all over again.
I’m half Irish, half German, and I don’t drink, so I can’t say I give a particular flying fuck about a stewardess’s qualms regarding booze. Sounds like she’s an attention whore.
“Their has been no outrage (not even the Irish).”
That woman was suspended and will likely be fired.
And Paid $$$$$$$$$.
If you get fired, you don’t collect unemployment. And firing her is the least that company can do.
Wouldn’t enforcing a judge’s lawful court order actually be part of the oath to defend the laws and constitution of the United States?
Wouldn’t doing your job as a properly elected official in compliance with the law of the land as you swore to do actually be appropriate to the oath of office?
Kim Davis chose to be an elected official representing the legal face of her local and state government and her oath is to abide by and fulfill the duties of that office in accordance with the law. If she no longer feels capable of doing her job shouldn’t the Oath Keepers ask her to keep her oath or resign instead of threatening violence against US Marshals enforcing a legal court order.
I dunno, as we’ve seen over and over, the “Oathkeepers” are mighty selective about which “oaths” they “keep.” Given the number of AWOLs among them that’s not surprising.
Oathkeepers seem to really like the 2nd amendment. They are pretty fond of the 1st as long as it is their speech and religion. The rest of the constitution they are a bit hazy.
Judicial tyranny is what we are up against. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by an elected Congress and signed into law by an elected president. So what? That means shit when one damn lawyer can thumb his nose at the process and impose his will on all of us. That. Is. Bullshit.
I always learn something from your comments, but I am on the fence here. As you know I have almost zero religious faith. I tend to examine this issue in terms of the premise “Democracy cannot be the tyranny of the majority” and thus, we have a Supreme Court that presumably will act in defense of the minority when required in accordance with their 5/4 moral compass. I am not sure if any of what I have written above has any basis in law and I am too tired and lazy right now to look it up. Plus, I am just a cave man.
In any regard, to me, the voter majority/minority, polling etc. is irrelevant. But I am willing to learn and to be convinced otherwise. Am I wrong?
Repent Sinner!
Only kidding!
Have a shot of Jameson!
“You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; 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…. Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
That was none other than Thomas Jefferson in 1820 regarding judicial review, the power not assigned by the Constitution to the Supreme Court. He was well aware that a few people in non-elective office for life could have their way, the country be damned.
You mention protection from majority tyranny. Funny you should raise that in this context because I cannot imagine a smaller minority than one lawyer dictating to the entire country what constitutes marriage. Hamilton referred to this as the court’s substituting its own pleasure for the constitutional intentions of the legislature.
The way I see this, I could not care less about Davis BUT the issue of judicial tyranny is near and dear to my heart. The most powerful group of lawmakers in the nation is not answerable to anyone once in office, is in office for life, and can do what they damn well please to do, as Roberts (obamacare) and DOMA (Kennedy) teach us. Yet, how many justices can the average citizen name? Dollars to donuts more people know the names of more players on their favorite sports team than the Supreme Court. But that’s America–land of the stupid
Of course you are wrong. Not sure why…..I will let you know when the Spousal Unit gets home.
I am not suggesting that the power of judicial review should be taken from the Supreme Court. I think it would be foolhardy to suggest such a thing. I wouldn’t mind if there were discussion about this in critterland just to get the attention of the boys and girls in black robes. What I expect is that the justices do not begin analysis of any constitutional issue with a conclusion and thereafter finding some twisted, fanciful, and ridiculous way of finding that the conclusion comports with the Constitution or that some law does not. Is there anyone who expected oBaMa’s appointees to disagree with Roberts on obamacare or Kennedy on DOMA? Of course not. And why is that? Because they have an agenda that does not include weighing constitutional provisions and prior court holdings in a thoughtful and detached manner. And therein the beef. If the Constitution can be ‘read into’ by five of nine justices to achieve a desired outcome, unconstrained by the electorate, then why have a Constitution at all? Why have a legislature at all?
I see your point(s) and I will ponder them. I think I’ll have that Jameson now and get back to you. Thanks.
Oathkeepers are morons!
A US Federal Judge order is an order to comply with the law of the land!
Whether you agree or not!
So, Mr. Oathkeeper(s) you want to fight a Tier 1 Trained USMS TAC Team?
Morons they are!
The gun battle will not be pretty for them, considering so few have any real training and the USMS TAC Teams are of the best in the country.
But what do I know …
Well if you include the training that most of the Oathkeepers think they did, and all the service they claimed to have had, then they can take on those Tier 1 guys no problem!
Your comment and the MSG below pretty much cover it!
But what if they self-identify as tier 1 operators? They have that right!
They’ve read every copy of Soldier of Fortune magazine and watched every Chuck Norris movie. So US Marshalls beware!
Perhaps they hade some shovel warfare training with Faker-6.
I could care less about her or the happy gay people flocking to Kentucky to protest. As every news organization has not reported is, she is a democrat. She is an ELECTED official. If you have to votes, recall her ass. It’s not like any politicians keep their word. DC is full of lying sacks of shit and they still have their jobs. And the oathkeepers, what is it, your drill weekend? Sorry for the rant…
OUT!!!
Should be have the votes.
Well, while everyone else is rattling on about this, that and the other thing, I went and did a little digging.
Davis took her job as county clerk on January 15, 2015.
The Baker v. Nelson decision was deemed constitutional in November 2014.
It was overturned in June, 2015, by Obergefell v. Hodges.
I think Davis knew what she was getting into when she took that job. If she disagreed then with the Supreme Court’s decision, she could have resigned.
This has become a circus that has nothing to do with anyone marrying anyone else.
Will you Marry Me?
Hmmm…. that’s a tough decision.
v
v
v
v
v
v
OK. But my father wants three goats, a donkey, and a new well dug first.
I can swing the goats, a well is just a foxhole with a rope and bucket right? I am afraid you will be stuck with the Ass though.
Can I be a bride’s maid? Or maybe the flower girl?
Well if it is goats you are looking for, you have come to the right place!
Hey, I’m cuter than Dave! Way cuter! And younger too! I’m a catch! 😉
Let me be perfectly clear about this.
I only marry men. I can only handle one man at a time. I do not care about snow on the roof, but there had better damned well be a fire in the furnace. I am unable to duplicate KFC’s gravy, but mine ain’t too bad. I like cats, dogs, horses, and dragonflies (they eat mosquitoes).
I also cook.
Damn. LOL
Well, then will you be my special friend?
I love the quiet feel of snow on the roof. The fire will always be warm and glowing.
I can think of nothing more seductive than a woman I cherish sharing those moments with me.
In the still of the night to be holding the one I love, a soft crackle of the fire, the smell of fresh baked bread, and the bouquet of a fine wine will only make me adore you more.
I will pull the moon from the sky, halt the sun as it sets, and place the world at your feet, if only it will keep you near.
If none of this bullshit works on you……NICKI STILL OWES ME A DANCE AND A BOTTLE OF WINE.
Oh, it works on me, all right. I’ll stop at Panera and get a fresh loaf, some brie en croute and some fresh fruits. I already have two white and one red (wines) mise en bouteille depuis 2011 chillin’ in the fridge.
But one cannot live on wine, brie and bread alone. I will also fix a good roast.
Easy big fella…
At this point in my life during the still of the night, I’m just glad to be able to sleep at all, never mind holding the one I love…
Nice poetry, the ladies must love you.
Oh, the sleeping doesn’t bother me, it’s the waking up next morning that I really want to happen.
Yep. You could marry me too! 😉
Я мечтал об этом дне всю свою жизнь.
Flirt!
Thanks for making sure people like this can own guns.
Funny how people like you that make statements like that never try to amend the constitution. There is a process. If you don’t like the 2nd amendment being there, amend it and be done.
Yeah, thanks to those damn Founding Fathers for ensuring that the people always held the power, vice a tyrannical ruling class.
Do you wake up and kiss the chains that bind you on a daily basis, you America-hating fucking retard?
Thanks for being the TAH token idiot Mark L.
After Mark L’s comment above, he did not excercise his first amendment right to free speech any further regarding John Forbes Kerry’s knife kill.
Gotta love that DU>TAH redirect virus. Just go home Mark.
One of the twinks should wear a dress when they fill out the paperwork. It’s Kentucky, who would really notice anything wrong.
Let’s look to the words of another Democrat when it comes to taking oaths and religion…
“…so when any man stands on the steps of the Capitol and takes the oath of office as President, he is swearing to support the separation of church and state. He puts one hand on the Bible and raises the other hand to God as he takes the oath. And if he breaks his oath, he is not only committing a crime against the Constitution, for which Congress can impeach him, and should impeach him, but he is committing a sin against God.”
-Senator Kennedy
That is brilliant! Who did he plagiarize it from?
I think you’re thinking of Teddy. This was from then Senator Jack Kennedy while on the ’59 campaign trail…
This pounding and shouting by the PC crowd is going to get louder. Here is a prediction, partly about the Fed: ‘Nothing is sustained on this rally, so far. They are waiting for Janet (Yellen), and we are waiting for Mercury retrograde combined with Jupiter in opposition to Neptune, on the same day that the authoritarian dynamic of Saturn re-enters the religious and fanatic sign of Sagittarius for the next two years. This is going to be fun, as in the spirit of witch-hunts for being politically incorrect. If you think some world leaders have been judgmental in their policies and behaviors, you have not seen anything yet, not like what you are about to witness now through 2016, and even into 2017. The words “self-righteous” and “outraged” come to mind as common expressions bandied about more often than usual.’ If you recall Alan Greenspan’s reports to Congress concerning the Fed when he was its Chairman, you may remember that he spent as much as a full hour slowly relaying his expertise in speeches that consisted of gobbledygook, kerfuffle and doublespeak. Basically, he said nothing but it sounded good. Yellen is just as good at doublespeak as Greenspan was, and her delivery is impressively deliberate, calm, soothing and slow. If she raises the rate, the US dollar will gain strength, which will be troubling for the US’s biggest trading partner: China, which has already begun depegging the Yuan from US currency. I said something about that 2 weeks ago. This may, and is very likely to, throw the markets into the panic/hysteria mode. If this happens, we should see another recession, which is looming, anyway. In regard to the ‘witch hunts’ and explosions of anger by the ‘self-righteous’ and perpetually outraged & butthurt, we can expect to see more of it – much, much more, and not necessarily JUST in this country. HOWEVER: it will come to an end at some point, toward the end of 2017. Like I said, the PC crowd does not have a chokehold on how people think or behave. A lot of truly stupid things… Read more »
“Hey, watch this shit” said the retired Warrant…….