germanchoclate1981's photo
Fri 09/25/15 10:21 PM

This is from ky.gov

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.
Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the
Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in
presence of the Circuit Court: "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the
duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my
skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all
books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." The fact that
the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.
Effective: January 2, 1978
History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978


The most important part being

I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk

Therefore, she is failing to uphold her oath of office.

This breaks down rather simple. The supreme court ruled banning same sex marriage is against the 14th Amendment of the constitution. Therefore, it is law to allow same sex marriages in every state. It is the job of the County Circuit Court Clerk to issue marriage licences. She was elected as the County Circuit Court Clerk. Now she is refusing to do part of that job. Since she unable to perform the job she has been elected to do (no matter what the reason) then she should step down. Otherwise, she is breaking the law.

When you have a job, you are supposed perform the task required of said job. When you don't perform the required task of a job, you get fired. No one says she has to agree with it.



You're right but that's not the most important part of her oath or affirmation.
Here's the legalese meat:

"making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all
books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality,"

Here's what she did wrong or failed to do:

" making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of THE COURT
(not CHURCH or voice in Kim Davis' head claiming the authority of GOD),
and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that

I will NOT KNOWINGLY or WILLINGLY commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office WITHOUT FAVOR(ITISM), AFFECTION or PARTIALITY,"

This means if Becky Johnson is her bestest friend in the whole wide world and her highschool sweetheart and father of her children comes in asking for a marriage license with a stripper two days after breaking up with Becky it is her SWORN DUTY as county clerk to issue THAT marriage license. Even if she knows it was just a misunderstanding that could blow over in a few days, that's what she was ELECTED and SWORN to do. It doesn't matter if the stripper practices voodoo has a peg leg and a glass eye. That's what Rowan county and the State of Kentucky pay her $80,000 a year to do.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Fri 09/25/15 09:58 PM
Edited by germanchoclate1981 on Fri 09/25/15 10:51 PM

thats how it is now, not how it always has been or how it should necessarily be,, but yes, how it is

employers arent mandated to have any detailed or specific job duties, they can just hire you in a capacity and expand or change it at will,,,


however, because elected officials are supposed to speak for those electing them, they arent able to be fired,, ,,,they can be voted out if their constituents dont feel represented

its one thing if someone tells me your duties will be sweep the floor, vaccuum the carpets and clean the windows and give massages

and I agree to perform my 'duties' under that context

and then they say, well your duties involve ALL massages including naked ones,,

yeah, I did agree to massage as a duty, but the context I understood that duty to be under was with clothes on,,,not with clothes off

legally, and unfortunately , an employer has the right to be that vague so they can hold you to anything they decide to change

but if the employer is the voters, its at least a little harder for any one person, or entity, to change up the context of your job and force you between adapting or unemployment,,,

in the end, she will no doubt lose her position, unless she changes her perception to view her job as witnessing a contract and nothing else

as long as she continues to consider it consenting to an agreement,, her values force her to refuse, and she will lose the position,,,

Any elected official guilty of committing a crime, which she has, can be ousted.
Any elected official proven to not uphold their SPECIFIC DUTY (like a sheriff seen driving by an accident on the way to burger king) can be removed.
Any elected official that publicly openly willingly and knowingly defies an ORDER of THE COURT, especially when their oath is sworn to a Court like a County Clerk or Clerk of Court, can be removed.

Refusal to issue a LEGAL document to ANYONE is grounds for removal of any ELECTED LEGAL CLERK.
It is entirely possible that she could have misinterpreted her LEGAL duty because NO CHANGE has been made to the 14th amendment which the SUPREME COURT used as LEGAL basis for their LEGAL decision. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny a citizen LEGAL documents for RELIGIOUS reasons. Her office is not in a church and she doesn't do RELIGIOUS work. She is a brainwashed hypocritical bigot that claims to speak FOR AUTHORITY OF GOD over rule of THE SUPREME COURT AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?
1 STUPID!!
2 BLASPHEMY!!

germanchoclate1981's photo
Fri 09/25/15 07:00 PM



Too bad that he didn't listen to his constituents. Maybe his successor will.


His constituents are the people who elected him to Congress, and they liked him enough to reelect him in 2014.


You can fool some of the people some of the time.....

Can't gon fool me again. :banana:

germanchoclate1981's photo
Fri 09/25/15 06:51 PM
The sale of women in Arabia is very common. Marriages are arranged for dowry as a norm in a region where human trafficking terrorist, Bedouins, merchants at bazaars and their suppliers.... It happens every day throughout the region. It doesn't make it right but the culture isn't tied to their homelands. It moves with the people.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Fri 09/25/15 12:24 AM


Pardon me if I don't completely trust the comments of an AVOWED ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES, when it comes to telling the truth about such things. Nor a website calling itself "conservativepost.com," to be fair and honest about Democrats. Might as well cite UpWithSocialism.com as an unbiased source for positive information about capitalism.

Also note: no President can spend money that hasn't first been appropriated by....CONGRESS. So if you folks want to pretend that Obama is funding ISIS, that means you have to also claim that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted the money for this act.

Want to put all the "treasonous dogs" in handcuffs? Make sure you include every Republican along with the President you hate.

fair and honest about democrats.... democrats lie, then republicans get the blame...whoa

Conservative (as related to American politics) generally republicans whose claimed political aims are dedicated to preservation of the CONSTITUTION as it was originally written.

The original CONSTITUTION before anyone added any additional agencies such as the FBI, CDC, FDA, etc.
Clearly States that the POTUS cannot declare war or send any troops apart from the marines without the approval of congress. This also relates to military spending. The President cannot earmark, divert, send ship or air drop anything in the way of weapons munitions military vehicles supplies jets bombs or so much as a cask of black powder into a war zone or conflict (police action, military relief/support...) OR adjust the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserves... without a MAJORITY VOTE from the House of Representatives and Senate, both currently OVERWHELMINGLY REPUBLICAN.
Not one dime, not a grenade, not one squad of U.S. Army, no Navy, no Air Force, and no Marines apart from the 1st MEF goes anywhere under the direct exclusive order from the President by himself.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Thu 09/24/15 05:21 PM

No religious arguments matter in the least with this. Those are all personal matters for the individual. It is a fundamental American principle that no one's personal religious beliefs will be impeded, except as they impinge on another person's personal religious (or non-religious) freedoms.

When this woman concluded that her job was no longer acceptable to her religious convictions, she was completely within her rights to resign her job.

There is nothing in American law which supports the idea that she should be allowed to demand as she did, that her personal religious convictions should become the functional rule of law, simply because she held the position that she did.



Bingo dingo.
No RELIGIOUS belief or RELIGIOUS law supersedes The CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (a LEGAL document).

germanchoclate1981's photo
Thu 09/24/15 01:30 AM


I admire her for standing for what she believes in but when you get paid by tax payers...ya kinda have to do the job according to the laws


until enough people contest the legitimacy of the law,,,,

this is one of those situations that is a conflict, because the constituion doesnt specifically mention marriage as a right, or mention it at all

yet the courts (and political pressure, imho) have determined they will define it that way

yet the same constitution does SPECIFICALLY mention religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


so the conflict being that laws are passed after people hold public office, that directly conflict with the tenets of a major and well recognized religion to use ones position to document support of something that is specifically prohibited by ones religion


I respect her stand,, I fear that she will lose her job over it, but I am also hopeful that within the process others who admire her will be in line to offer her something even better

one door closes, another opens


Here is the problem
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Congress did not make such a law.
Not one promoting a(ny) religion, nor any requiring adherence to one or any religion and it cannot.
That's the legislative side.
The judicial branch doesn't write legislation per se, but it is their CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to examine the laws as just or unjust. This isn't a construct of the Obama administration or the lbgt citizens. It's a part of the checks and balances written into the constitution itself.

The "establishment of religion" we fought the English for FREEDOM FROM was the Anglican Church, whose clergymen were defacto parliment. The King of England ruled the country empire and the church. Church rule was English rule, not the rule or the word of Christianity. It was the word of Christianity subject to the crown and the military/royal guard/royal navy/bishops... All fingers of the same crushing palm subject to change at the will of the King.

As Americans we are free to practice any religion we wish or none at all without fear of persecution prosecution or execution by our elected government. Catholics are not flogged or locked in London tower as heretics or traitors. Nor are other religions or agnostics. If that is their faith/belief, they are free to practice it or not.
LEGALLY, it DOES NOT separate them from CITIZENSHIP nor any RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GUARANTEED AND PROTCTED BY LAW to citizens of ANY FAITH.

CHURCH




and





STATE

are

SEPARATE

in

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Evidence to support this FACT is in
The CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Thu 09/24/15 12:52 AM
If Kim Davis.... weighs the same.... as a duck.... then she is..... made of wood.

BURN THE WITCH! BURN HER!!!!!!

germanchoclate1981's photo
Thu 09/24/15 12:41 AM
To anyone out there that is a citizen of the United States, pays taxes, abides by the laws and is considering a same-sex marriage, I have an idea.

The First amendment guarantees your freedom of speech and religion. The founding fathers wrote that first for a reason, it wasn't random. I'm sure you are all aware of the judicial review that allows you the same LEGAL rights as any other American.

I think those of you seriously considering marriage, and those of you who already had plans to try again now that the Courts have assured you won't be denied your LEGAL rights, make a pilgrimage. Make a responsible respectful, LEGAL pilgrimage to Rowan County Kentucky. Make signs with the First amendment. You too have the right to peacefully assemble. Contact airlines and car rental companies and try to get group rates. Tourism helps the economy. PEACEFUL UNITY in the face of adversity, is a Constitutional Right of yours anywhere in the United States. It is protected, as will you be physically, by the laws and Law Enforcement officials. It is their duty to protect you, and they will. People in Rowan County have been denied their rights and going to jail for 5 days didn't teach this hag anything. She has taken upon herself to deny your fellow citizens their constitutional rights, no matter what. How much longer should she make $80,000 a year to sign and stamp marriage licenses, which she's no longer doing? Instead, in spite, and illegaly, she makes public statements in defiance of a 6th circuit court order and try to PERSONALLY circumvent the U.S. Court system of which she is an ELECTED OFFICIAL. I say go, peaceably, in protest, and demand she do her Publicly Elected LEGAL DUTY.

PEACEFUL LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PILGRIMAGE TO ROWAN COUNTY KENTUCKY!

germanchoclate1981's photo
Thu 09/24/15 12:02 AM


I admire her for standing for what she believes in but when you get paid by tax payers...ya kinda have to do the job according to the laws


I'm not sure what exactly she believe in.

The issuance of a marriage licence simply means that the two people named on it are legally qualified to get married to each other within the state that the license is issued.

Issuance does not mean that the county clerk personally approves of those two people getting married to each other.

Also, what irreparable harm would happen to her if she issued the licenses?
None that I know of.

Thank you.
*She willfully campaigned
*Willfully entered the race for office
>She didn't elect herself, but the above two willful actions of hers made her being elected possible.
*She willfully took the office, in which she was sworn to perform her PUBLIC LEGAL obligations in accordance with the laws, county State and U.S. Constitution.

*She willfully CHOSE to change her faith, converted, shifted, assimilated, how ever you want to say it, which she was within her right to do. It's a personal CHOICE that she made, coerced or not, she CHOSE it. Np.
(where exactly in the timeline this happened in relation to her 4 marriages and or divorces is irrelevant)

?Assuming she had access to the internet, TV, newspapers... She knew that magistrates were stepping down after getting pressure from the appellate Courts. :thumbsup: At least they have the dignity and respect for the responsibility that came with their titles. They should be commended by the courts for using their freedom of speech to disagree without obstructing justice or denying citizens their LEGAL rights.

....even if she didn't read hear or see the media coverage on these cases, I'm certain there was communication directly to her from the 6th circuit Court with specific LEGAL instructions on the issuance of licenses. It wasn't to stop issuing licenses altogether, which she did so as not to discriminate, which in itself is ridiculous because it only added more angry discrimination from people with NO LEGAL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICE or COURT.

So by standing her ground, she, herself, Kim Davis, Rowan Kentucky County Clerk, spat in the face of her constituents, spat in the face of the 6th circuit Court, spat in the face of the Supreme Court, wiped her a55 with the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and supplanted her LEGAL office with a zealous Pseudo-religious mob. And people applaud that?

She didn't behead anyone, I know, but how is this any different than Sharia Law being imposed on U.S. Soil?
It's based in religion.
The 2 biggest reasons we established The United States of America via the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and The Constitution were freedom of speach/religion and taxation without representation.

Besides the fact that she is speaking for God and God's authority, in a LEGAL capacity, isn't that sacrilegious? A little?

germanchoclate1981's photo
Wed 09/23/15 10:51 PM
There's a Chinese herbal remedy for biogas, but the side effects may include bloating flatulence with or without oily discharge and on rare occasions solar shingles.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Tue 09/22/15 01:46 PM




Wait a sec, it's political. The pope is the head of a sovereign nation, the Vatican. It's political business, it has little to do with religion other than dividing changing removing the word of the apostles and their followers. Sounds like another group I hear a lot about...


true, but it's different situation compared to all other sovereign nations, as he is the leader of the Catholic church, which encompasses people from just about every nation on earth... and their doctrines don't empower his land, it empowers the Catholics as a whole, all 1.8 billion of them... kind of unique, wouldn't you say?

In the socioeconomicpolitisphere of Christianity yes. Think of another socioeconomicpolitisphere 'sold as' 'religion'. Think about it, seriously.


preaching to the choir, there man...

Who am I talking about?

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 09/21/15 11:45 PM


i don't get how they can just change the word of god because it suits their needs... and people wonder why i'm an atheist...whoa


Just started reading the thread and saw this......

If they can change our Constitution and bill of rights to fit their agenda then religion and the bible is an easy reach

Catholicism in particular is responsible for the most changes made to the holy bible and it happened before the Magna Carta was written. It happened in Turkey, but it was a Roman emperor who was the political driving force behind the change. Many believe leaving Rome, the true home of the empire who crucified our Lord (via Pontius Pilate) and many other Christians in and around the City was his way for atoning for the murders of so many who died for their religious beliefs. Turning his back on Rome, in the long run for the empire it spelled its doom.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 09/21/15 11:35 PM
Edited by germanchoclate1981 on Mon 09/21/15 11:49 PM


Wait a sec, it's political. The pope is the head of a sovereign nation, the Vatican. It's political business, it has little to do with religion other than dividing changing removing the word of the apostles and their followers. Sounds like another group I hear a lot about...


true, but it's different situation compared to all other sovereign nations, as he is the leader of the Catholic church, which encompasses people from just about every nation on earth... and their doctrines don't empower his land, it empowers the Catholics as a whole, all 1.8 billion of them... kind of unique, wouldn't you say?

In the socioeconomicpolitisphere of Christianity yes. Think of another socioeconomicpolitisphere 'sold as' 'religion'. Think about it, seriously.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 09/21/15 11:15 PM

I am quite amused by the 'Trump doesn't correct the Muslim President guy' kerfuffle that has broken out since the debate. It's hilarious for the following reason. If your EVER had any doubts that CNN was completely a biased network, Friday night should have proved it to anyone with any doubt.

In the course of discussing this Trump 'gaffe', night time anchor guy Don Lemon gets invited to comment. He basically berates Trump, and says OMG he can't believe so many Americans are so stupid to think Obama is a muslim, etc.

BUT THEN, taking a page from the Hillary Clinton handbook, he basically says "Well, so what if Obama WAS a Muslim. I wouldn't care. In fact, it might be cool to have a Muslim president!"

WHHHAAAATTTT?

So what IF he was a Muslim???? Well Don, you phuckin' genius, it would mean HE'S BEEN LYING FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS WHILE PRESIDENT. We suspect he's lied about a whole bunch of other stuff, but I mean it's not like he's ever told a whopper before...
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
"I never set a red line in Syria."
"Benghazi was caused by a You Tube video."
"Obamacare won't add a dime to the deficit."

Ya know, he's just a truth telling machine set on auto-pilot that guy....Anyway, so CNN, arguably the place where a large percentage of Americans get their news has at least one (if not several)on air talents who could really care less how blatantly their president lies to them.

Stunning.


For anyone who hasn't yet noticed, CNN isn't just covering his campaign. He chose CNN to announce, he chose CNN to broadcast him for two weeks straight at one stretch when other candidates weren't talking to the point where all the news outlets were covering him and the other candidates complained that they couldn't get airtime. That's one of the reasons the debate was extended to 3 hours. Covering and reporting a candidate is one thing but exclusive primetime broadcast piracy as a political campaign is another. Small fundrraisers with small donations get two or three 30 second PowerPoint presentations on Twitter aired on CNN for those who can't spell Twitter which subsequently gets aired on.... Anyone, guess.... someone..... CNN for how much? Free.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 09/21/15 10:01 PM
RROFO
E-85. Brazil did it. Many others have done it. We (Bush)[@merricuhn oil co.] put sanctions on it price it and the vehicles that use it higher and dispersed the very small percentage so far apart you have to use gasoline in between if you even go to where it is.
Biodiesel (cetane 40 vs 45 for most commercially available diesel) burns very dirty comparatively in cars trucks etc designed before it was released on the market, and is still not commonly available locally. Within a 200 mile or so radius there are 2 stations I know of that have or had it. After a $1900 repair bill on my engine that almost died, thank god it was under warranty, I run regular and don't leave black clouds every time I pass someone.
The U.S. Grows more corn than anyone in the world, if all of Brazil can convert to E-85, oh yeah, Dubyah's legacy sanctions, nevermind.
Stop burning coal China!

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 09/21/15 09:27 PM
Hey China, what have you done with the billions of USD from Wal-Mart?
They burned it in coal plants, the ink and fiber cause a nuclear reaction generating heat and little slivers of aluminum which is converted into higher emissions than coal, so it is used 1 day a week while coal is used 7 days a week in nuclear power plants. Where is the electricity? Trains powered by coal transfer coal to stockpiles that power the nuclear plants. What for?
Maybe, just maybe, a huge capacitor was the cause of the horrific explosion there recently. Maybe, just maybe, they are secretly trying to develop an electric super weapon vs a nuclear one. R&D. (&Death) might have something to do with the devaluation of the � destabilizing wall street and the Dao Jones.
Lesson to the rest of the world, renewable energy and energy weapons can be extremely dangerous. Read ALL instructions before during and after assembly operation and or shutdown. Hopefully it's not

Made in China

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 09/21/15 08:31 PM
Wait a sec, it's political. The pope is the head of a sovereign nation, the Vatican. It's political business, it has little to do with religion other than dividing changing removing the word of the apostles and their followers. Sounds like another group I hear a lot about...

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 09/21/15 08:26 PM
It's not religion, not politics, it's business. It depends if it was an 'at will employment' State like here. An employee can work for the State for 15 years be up for promotion and be fired for 'no reason'. At any given time your employment may be terminated at will.

germanchoclate1981's photo
Mon 09/21/15 01:11 AM

Experts confirms the existence of a colonial schemes targeting the division and fragmentation of the Arab states turning them into mini-states along sectarian and doctrinal basis, in contrast federation will appear led by Israel as the only central state that will govern the region in an effort to realize the dream of "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" after weaken neighboring countries.
The most meaningful scheme to divide the Arab world is the document of Bernard Lewis approved by the US Congress in 1983. According to the report published by the newspaper "The Wall Street Journal,"
The Scheme of Bernard Lewis was published by the Journal of the American Department of Defense attached to a set of maps showing the division of each state to four states.
Some experts consider that ISIS is US made as the foundation stone for the beginning of the implementation of these schemes that play the sectarian religious. But ISIS has got out of control after the rapid expansion of the organization in Iraq and Syria.
Israel provides ISIS with advisory support, information and weapons. Saudi Arabia and Qatar provide them with men, money and ideology. European countries send fighters via Turkey. Turkey provides shelters.
According to the justice of God, everyone helps to injustice will one day pay the price for his injustice.


Googled it, didn't come up with Bernard Lewis or the title or 1983.
That would make a big difference landing it before the Iraq Iran war, the biggest military action in the region before USSR Afghanistan, OIF or OEF. Funny what does come up when you
Google the title " The most meaningful scheme to divide the Arab world"

1 your post 1 day ago.
2 another mingle post Sept 8th
3 CARE.ORG wasn't that a Bush program that supposedly gave humanitarian aid to Africa?
4 miss
5 Carnegieendowment.org 2008. Whoa.........
6 OECD.org cited by 28 articles by a Sullivan
7 wef.org World Economic Forum, 2011 2012 cites above (5)
8 UNESCO.org

Earliest assoc article dates from 2008 which is before 44 in Dubyah's last year of rule.

It would make a 5#*+ ton of sense if this had been some 'scheme arranged during the cold war era to put a strategicly militarized hostile neutral area between us and the reds that didn't pan out. The Iran hostage snafu, Munich, PLO, the Afghani gamble with Russia, Iraq Iran, Qhadafi, Hussein, Khomeini, stolen U.S. Stinger missiles, Blackhawk Downmad ................ oooohhhhhhh........ There was more than one big carrot in the pot, guess whose carrot wasn't in there?
All of these things happened before Obama took office, most before he was even old enough to be a senator.