Posted on 09/03/2015 7:11:00 PM PDT by parksstp
That is strange that he has that on his facebook page with nothing showing that it wasn’t his words. All I can think is, he isn’t running the FB page and one of his people put that there.
That quote goes absolutely opposite of what he has actually said though. He could get “smacked” for having someone elses comments on his page without giving Huck the credit.
What was weak about it it? Go to the link in my post above yours.
And the response that is Two below yours explains that it isn’t his quote. It goes completely opposite of what he said yesterday afternoon and as soon as this morning. Someone on his team put Mike Huckabee’s quote on his FB page. They didn’t even state that it isn’t Trumps words. He will either remove it or someone will point it out to the media who will have a field day.....
Or, the other guy copied him. When was the other statement made? Trump’s was made about 1 yesterday or that was when it was posted on FB. I am very curious. I like mysteries. : )
It seems Huck “trumped” Trump by a couple of hours. He had it released as a press release and then followed suit to his facebook page. If you type the quote into Bing or Google, all results are Huckabee. Not a mention of Trump saying it.
Again, I think one of his staff made an error...?
Huck’s statement was made about 14 hours ago according to his timeline. Trump’s was made about 1 yesterday afternoon. There are some differences. Do they have the same writers?
I don’t want to dispute this to a point of angering you but if you type the quote in, it shows that it was posted to his fb page 22 hours ago and was a press release a day ago (24 hours). I’ve not seen anything that shows 14 hours. Not saying it isn’t there but his own pages show otherwise.
Also, as I mentioned, if you type the quote in; nowhere is it mentioned that Trump released it. Everything out there has it pointed directly at Huck. Who is actually one of the few people to have actually spoken to Davis. Right or wrong, he is backing her 100% where Trump has absolutely said, “It is the law of the land”. His opinion is, she is breaking the law. His words. Not mine.
The link you posted is NOT the real Donald Trump’s FB page. The real Donald trump FB page has a blue checkmark next to his profile picture as verified. The link you provided is a fake profile run by a supporter who found Hucks comments and typed them in his fake Trump profile.
If you want to follow the real Trump, look for the blue check mark. All other profiles are imitations
Just saw this also which confirms its a fake.
The real Donald Trump FB profile has no spaces in his first or last name in the URL. This fake Trump account has a hyphen between his first and last name which is a giveaway.
Not saying you have anything to do with it,but I suggest you dump the fake and subscribe to the real Donald Trump page. It’s not just him, all the candidates have spoof profiles set up by friends and foes alike. They get an audience which only encourages more people to build more spoof profiles which is why FB went to the verified check mark system
Someone who is not concerned with either, someone who lauds other single payer health schemes, does not give me any confidence that they would abolish Obamacare, for instance.
Maybe with some people everything is on the table while cutting a deal, but there are some things which should not be.
The illegal immigration issue, the RKBA, and the essential First Amendment rights to freedom of religion should never be bargaining chips,nor should those essential Rights be ignored.
There is no Right for sodomy, nor for the legitimization thereof. No more than the Right for women to slaughter babies in the womb. Considering our Rights were considered God-Given (unalienable), I don't find all these 'court discovered' "rights" to be valid, especially in conflict with the Right of those who refuse to acknowledge them to Worship as they choose, and avoid being compelled to act in contravention to their beliefs.
In the current political climate, requiring a Muslim to eat ham, for instance, would be a source of outcry, not compulsion.
Equal Protection Clause
Those five “justices” fabricated that “right” out of thin air. The Constitution says **nothing** about states not being able to have laws prohibiting marriage between persons of the same sex. On the other hand, there **are** laws, in Kentucky and elsewhere, that prohibit such “marriages.” No law has been passed otherwise.
Unfortunately we have been scammed. Go to the Donald J. Trump page for the real deal.
It's not about her 'believing' whatever the hell she wants. It is about not doing her job, being ordered by a judge to do her job, and refusing the judge's order is what got her put in jail. The clerks job is to process the license, not decide who gets to have one.
Let me put it another way. Your county elects a sheriff. Your state has a 'shall issue' concealed carry permitting law. Your sheriff refuses to process your concealed carry permit on account of his pacifist religious teachings. This government functionary is now claiming he has the religious right to deny you your rights. Judge orders him to issue the permit, but refuses and is jailed on contempt. Is he being jailed for his religious beliefs, or is he jailed for defying the judge's order to carry out the law and issue your permit?
We're not a nation of laws, except for when the county clerk of Podunk decides to no longer follow the law. We're a nation of laws, period. The other choice is an anarchy where every bureaucrat you encounter can decide which laws apply today. No thanks, I can't imagine a worse tyranny.
He’s going to have to do more than talk about his love of the Bible.
This is a campaign. It’s all talk. Experience shows us to take everything said with a grain of salt. How many “Tea Party” folks did we elect who promptly sold us down the river once they got to the beltway.
Now contrast the importance of hot air campaign rhetoric to Ted Cruz casting a vote in the U.S. Senate to enable Obamatrade and other obama secret deals.
If you’re going to worry about whatever Trump says you sure as heck should be worried about a U. S. Senator voting to enable Obama.
She does not work for the judge, she was elected, she works for her constituents. The only option to forcefully remove an elected official is impeachment. In reality, the judge should have zero authority over her unless she breaks a law. In this case, there is no law on the books saying she has to issue marriage licenses to queers, none. This judge should be removed from the bench and prosecuted for abuse of power.
No sheriff has ever been put in jail for not issuing CCW permits, and lots of them have refused to issue them to eligible citizens. Nor has any clerk been jailed for issuing marriage licensees to queers when queer marriage was illegal. Nor any mayor who refuses to follow immigration laws, that are on the books, in sanctuary cities. Your failure to understand that this woman is in jail simply for not violating her constitutionally protected religious beliefs is unfortunate, for lack of a better civil word.
Indecently, Ky voted 75% to define marriage as one man and one woman. And oh by the way, I am not religious at all.
Yes we are! But there is no law in Kentucky as the legislature is not in session so none has even been considered.
Current law prohibits the issuance of marriage licenses to gays.
The Supreme court does not have the ability to make new law. Only the legislature can do that or congress.
This woman was caught in a moral dilemma. The fed court is trying to ram this scotus decision up everyones backside. If this had been the law before she ran and was elected to office she would not have run.
What is happening in Kentucky and some other states that have already folded up like cheap tents, is blatantly unconstitutional. The only way we can address this is by ignoring the decision and petitioning our reps to do the same. If that does not work then all you have left is to fall on your sword and refuse.
Government offices of personnel, and those of private companies as well are currently requires to attempt to adjust the working environments for those with religious sensitivity's. they did not even consider that in this case. They are in error and they are illegal and unconstitutional. This is political brinkmanship. Nothing more or less.
And it's obscene.
The Supreme Court can invalidate laws that are held to be unconstitutional.
But there is no law in Kentucky as the legislature is not in session so none has even been considered.
It's not anarchy when the legislature is in recess. Kentucky has marriage laws. The Supreme Court has held that laws that forbid whites marrying blacks are unconstitutional. The legislature does not then have to convene in order for blacks and whites to marry once the Supreme Court has invalidated an unconstitutional law.
It's typical for unconstitutional laws to be repealed, but the idea that a county clerk can ignore whatever laws she doesn't like is anarchy. The county is not her fiefdom. The Constitution holds federal law supreme, and the Congress has empowered a court system per that Constitution that reviews laws. The county clerk isn't part of that process. Never has been.
This woman was caught in a moral dilemma.
And she can quit if she doesn't want to perform this function of the government. What she can't do is use her own 'moral dilemma' as a weapon to deny someone else their rights under the law, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Again, what would your view be of this women be if she refused to issue a concealed carry permit because of her religious beliefs? Do you really think that is the county clerk's role in our government, particularly in the face of court rulings?
You had to really contort yourself to come up with a reglious belief that involved a carry permit.
My point about the legislature being out of session, relates more to the Gay lobby ramming this crap up our backsides. This nonsense began immediately after the decision. Normally there is a delay, and if no delay, a stay, but that did not happen in this case. So no matter what contorted view you decide to employ here to support your argument, the fact remains that SCOTUS cannot make new state law. So either the existing state law is moot and there is NO law, or it's still in force but unenforceable.
As to her option to resign. many of them actually did in a number of states. She chose to resist, which is a valid option going back to the Old Testament.
If you need a valid modern comparison to accept what she is doing without the "Law and Order" refrain which I view as invalid in a bad law case, you can compare her to a whistleblower and she should now have protection under the Fed whistleblower law. But she does not have any protection at all. She has been relieved of her liberty and that is everything, in order to force her to do something that in my view is utter garbage.
If you are worried about anarchy, then I would tread lightly because this issue could be the catalyst for a revolution down the road.
It is that important, and why I am engaged in it.
There is no protections for Gay Marriage in the 14th amendment and that is the nut of the problem.
The court did a similar act of legal hocus-pocus one time before when it found that free states had the legal responsibility to collect and return property that had crossed it's borders. It led to a civil war. The 14th amendment was added to address this legal mistake and then they used the 14th to essentially divine more hocus-pocus law in a equally important case that will also lead to the road to hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.