Mike Huckabee on Civil Rights, Al Sharpton and Republicans

[Fashionificationful]

Al Sharpton believes that a vote for Obama was a vote for socialism. watch?v=KCpINI5aVy0 Al Sharpton wants to share the wealth. “Al Sharpton: We Won't Have True Social Justice Until Everything is Equal in Everybody's House” watch?v=95bcEb1rV18

.

Sharpton should start by giving up his $5 million (from celebrity net worth com) It’s also worth noting Hilter was a socialist that seemed to follow the Communist Manifesto.

.

Allen West 2012

[jamesdh76]

You guys can rant racism all you want, it is only making whites look stupid, and it's weakning the Country.

[DavidDLPE]

@jamesdh76 - this makes no sense. Who is ranting racism? Especially among whites? The only thing I have said on racism is that the definition should be applied to everyone equally. What is so stupid about that? To me, the most racist thing we can do is to allow for lower standards for any particular race. To me, that is more insulting than any racial slur that could be uttered.

[DavidDLPE]

Remember that there is one thing that tempers that little rule about the majority, and that is the Constitution. If the majority implement a legality that is unconstitutional, then the majority will be struck down. I maintain that marriage is an inalienable right, and a law redefining marriage would be a violation of that right. Of course, if we ever get to the place that the majority would express a desire for the legality of gay marriage, we would have problems far more grave than that.

[DavidDLPE]

While we disagree, I do appreciate the civil discussion, and hope to hear from you again. I do encourage you to do more research on your own, and think through the consequences that gay marriage could bring. Insurance risks pools and classification, the raising of children (taking a being created heterosexually and forcing him to be raised by homosexuals, thus perverting his very nature). Much, much more...

Take care, and hope to hear from you again.

[DavidDLPE]

Great, then let the gays go to another country or set up their own where they will not be imposing their will on others. That is what nobody talks about - allowing gay marriage in our nation has consequences that extend socially, economically, physically and spiritually. Think, man! We have existed as a nation for 230+ years without it. Why would that be? Because it wasn't wanted! Either they get their way or we get ours - someone loses. The majority of people don't want it...

[DavidDLPE]

Yes, our nation protects the rights of the weak minority, but that does not mean that we allow the will of the minority override or infringe upon the rights of the majority! Apparently, according to gays and liberals, the only way you're able to have any rights in this country is if you're a mamber of the outnumbered freaks? No, it doesn't work like that. We are a representative republic functioning as a democracy - majority wins. The majority in this nation still define themselves as Christian!

[DavidDLPE]

Well, that is your decision. The fact is that our nation has an identity and a heritage that many are trying to change. That is why it is important to look back and try to get into the hearts and minds of those great men who founded this country. To answer your question as best I can, the reality is that no man would ever be thrown in jail for not being a Christian or refusing to worship God. But it was true in the early days through the first 150 years that to be an atheist in this country...

[DavidDLPE]

..was something that was not looked upon well. The Scopes Monkey Trial took place in 1925 or so, where a case was brought against a teacher for teaching evolution (and denouncing God) to his students at a HS in TN. Contrary to the Hollywood prodution, INHERIT THE WIND, Scopes lost. Whether you agree with that or not, that tells you a lot about our religious identity. Now, we have "evolved" to a place that God is banned in school and we cannot even get Intelligent Design theories taught in the..

[DavidDLPE]

...classroom, in a public school system that was set up 230 years ago with the Bible as required curriculum! Think about that!

What you should realize is that being a Christian nation is what enabled us to grow and prosper and rise in power in the world the way we did. By WWI, we led the world in education and technology, which proved the sayings of Benjamin Rush:

...

[DavidDLPE]

[T]he greatest discoveries in science have been made by Christian philosophers and . . . there is the most knowledge in those countries where there is the most Christianity.

- Founding Father Dr. Benjamin Rush

[DavidDLPE]

Really? Are you just being purposely difficult now? I never said that we don't establish laws based on the Bible. In fact, to the contrary, our laws began ABSOLUTELY based on the Bible. The state Constitutions of all original 13 colonies had some form of wording to the effect that it is the DUTY of EVERY MAN to worship God and honor the Bible as His inspired work!

What I did say is that we do not have a government that imposes religious practices upon non-Christians.

[DavidDLPE]

That said, we also do not allow the imposition of non-christian practices upon our citizens.

There is no "ban on gay marriage," as "gay marriage" does not exist. Yes, there are some who are trying to change that, but this brings us to the point, doesn't it? One side must lose. We thrived as a nation for over 230 years and there has never before been a legally-recognized marriage in our nation until just a few years ago. Who is imposing upon whom?

[DavidDLPE]

The best piece of evidence that refutes your contention is the selection of Benjamin Rush to design and implement, and oversee the implementation of our public school system. His openly-stated conviction is that the Bible is the most essential tool for correction and instruction. As a result of his work, the Bible was the primary tool of learning from the time of our founding until the early 1960's.

[DavidDLPE]

1777 - Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies.

1782 - the United States Congress declared, "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

[DavidDLPE]

You can pull all of the misconstrued quotes you would like, but actions speak louder than words, my friend.

It would seem strangely absurd that a group of men, founding a new nation, who had "open contempt for Christianity," as you say, would choose such a man to set up the public education system he did, and to vote to approve the Bible for use in ALL SCHOOLS.

This is a matter of record. When you are willing to drop your ideology and look at truth, your eyes will be opened.

[DavidDLPE]

I will provide the writings of each of those people that flatly refute that lie. You, sir, are clearly among the indoctrinated.

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

[DavidDLPE]

My God... I am so sick of retracing the same old stupid arguments.

1) The TOT in no way establishes law over US citizenry.

2) The TOT was an assurance to the Muslim nation that we are not a Christian GOVERNMENT (notice that word) in the way that they are a Muslim government.

3) The TOT is predated by the Declaration of Independence which set the foundation for the Constitution, and are the basis of Law in America.

4) The TOT is post-dated by the 1892 Supreme Court.

[DavidDLPE]

Do some thinking... Why was the TOT even necessary? Who benefitted? It did nothing for the USA. Have you ever read it in full?

The facts: so well-known it was that America is a Christian nation, the muslim nation of Tripoli sought assurances that our religious differences would not produce enmity between us. See, in muslim nations, their very governments and laws follow the Qu'ran, and they had the idea that we were their Christian counter-part.

[DavidDLPE]

For instance, if you resided in most muslim nations, your religion would not be a private matter. The Qu'ran clearly instructs that there are 3 ways muslims deal with non-muslims - either convert them, make them subject, or kill them. There is a term in the Qu'ran - jizia. The jizia is a tax that is levied on non-muslims living in muslim lands, and it fulfills the command of the Qu'ran to make non-muslims subject. American GOVERNMENT does not do this, which is what is stated in the TOT.

[DavidDLPE]

First, I doubt you're right - Watergate is too important to liberals. But in the scope of its importance to the history of our nation, I wouldn't care if it were not focused on so heavily. Some perspective - People broke in to DNC headquarters to illegally obtain information on the DNC campaign so Nixon could prepare for his own campaign. Sandy Berger broke into the National Archives and stole national security documents related to the Clinton Administration's actions against terrorism...

[DavidDLPE]

Which of those two strikes you as the bigger story? If you're a liberal rag with an agenda against Republicans, you go with Watergate. If you are a true American who cares about the security of our country, you go with the story of a former White House National Security Advisor - a very high ranking official - breaking into a secure government building and illegally removing classified documents, shoving them down his pants and socks, to cover up matters of national security.

[DavidDLPE]

This is where I point you to the 1892 Supreme Court decision that established firmly that America is a Christian nation. We were established on Christian principles. In the cases of the right to vote, there is some truth to what you are saying, and those things have been remedied. But the idea of gay marriage is a clear violation of our principles. If you'd like, I can forward you a message I just shared with another of my YouTube friends that gives you the full background on this.

[DavidDLPE]

Sorry, I accidentally deleted your comment:

AngryScissors says: I would argue that America being a Christian nation is a violation of the Founding Fathers' principles and that that Supreme Court Case should be overturned much the same way Dread Scott was. The Founders were against this nation being rooted in any one religion.

[DavidDLPE]

And you would once again be wrong. They were against government tyranny, which is what would happen if the government were to choose any one Christian religion.

If you read the text of the 1892 decision, it cites the constitutions and charters of other states and colonies where they demand that no person be allowed to hold public office unless he is a Christian. For example:

This is from the Delaware Constitution, 1776, as cited in the 1892 Supreme Court decision...

[DavidDLPE]

"Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A.B., do profess [143 U.S. 457, 470] faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration..."

[DavidDLPE]

There is example after example after example... And in the vernacular of that day, when the words God, religion, Supreme Being, etc. were used, it was a general understanding that they were speaking of the God of Christianity.

Like I said, I will be happy to forward you the information and you can embark on your own research.

There is no doubt that the modern understanding has strayed violently from where we started.

[DavidDLPE]

Great question! I'll tell you what happens... Ventura went on to say that "the people would vote for a proposition legalizing slavery if it were worded the right way..." Setting aside how ridiculous this statement is, let's assume that happened. This is where the widom of our Founders comes into play. The government they set up has checks and balances. If such a law were passed in any state, by referendum or by legislature, it could be fought in the courts, and would be deemed unconstitutional.

[DavidDLPE]

Ulterior motives or not is irrelevant. Last night, watching election results on CNN, and the returns were showing that the law establishing gay marriage was being repealed. Jesse Ventura made the statement, "Well, it just shows that there is no separation of church and state in America..." He went on to say that we should not leave such issues to a vote of the people - that we should leave that duty to the representatives in government without regard to the will of the people...

[DavidDLPE]

BTW - I am talking about the vote in Maine. Anyway, this shows the attitude of liberals in Congress. They think they are doing the right thing by forcing healthcare, gay marriage, etc. down our throats. But they don't care about how it gets accomplished, and this is not the country our Founders envisioned. First, Ventura showed that he does not at all understand the First Amendment. Second, he happens to be right about there being no separation, but it is the gov't who is infringing...

[DavidDLPE]

The Founders believed in "inalienable rights." "Among these, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Focus on the phrase, "among these." That means that what followed was not an exhaustive list - there are other inalienable rights besides those they listed.

An "inalienable right" is a right that cannot be taken or infringed upon by government.

I submit that marriage is an "inalienable right" - we did not get that right from the government, and they cannot take it away, nor...

[DavidDLPE]

...are they able to redefine it. For government to pass a law establishing a right to "gay marriage" is a violation of the First Amendment, and a de facto violation of the Constitution.

People like Ventura, Reid, Pelosi, Obama - liberals - are trying to create a government that not only over-reaches but steps all over the Constitution.

They might not be sitting around in dark smoky rooms plotting to take over the world, but there would be no difference in the effect their actions would produce.

[DavidDLPE]

You seem like a good guy and all, but you have some mistaken notions as to who is polarizing. I am just stating facts. Whether the actual liberal is well-meaning or not, the evil associated with its efforts is insidious. That's plain-spoken, not mean. There are people who work for Planned Parenthood who think they are helping women, but the evil heritage of that organization and what it does is undeniable. The road to Hitler and Mao goes through socialism, and that is where liberals are found.

[DavidDLPE]

Highly recommend that book. Every factual claim she makes is thoroughly notated and sourced, and she has yet to be disproven. It is where I first learned of the Venona Project, which was an amazing revelation in and of itself. It amazes me that it is not common knowledge and taught in every history class from gradeschool to college. The fact that it isn't just shows the hold liberals have on our education system right now.

[DavidDLPE]

Not offended at all - we'll have to agree to disagree.  Going back to even before WW I, democrats have been liberal, and have also been the inroad for the various communist movements within our country. FDR called Stalin "Uncle Joe", and we know now through the Venona Project that FDR had many high-ranking KGB agents in his administration. Joe McCarthy is vilified by liberals. What they don't like to mention is that every single person he named was later proven to be a paid KGB agent.

[DavidDLPE]

My point is that the roots of Conservatism go straight back to the founders, and has been associated with the Rep Party from its earliest days. Liberalism ties to communism/socialism go back to at least WW I.

The most amazing book I have read on this is TREASON by Ann Coulter. I realize that name gets liberal panties in a wad, but the reason for that is that she sheds a great deal of truth on them. They attack her because of her delivery, but they are never able to disprove her content.

[DavidDLPE]

This is a bunch of crap - by whose definition, yours? You are obviously buying into the notion that the conservatives are racists. If that is true, you are ignorant. The liberals, in all their bs compassion, are the ones who have kept the blacks in chains over the past 50 years by keeping them dependent on government handouts. It is liberals who fight for abortion and Planned Parenthood, which was founded by Margaret Sanger, whose sole purpose in so doing was to get rid of blacks, whom she...

[DavidDLPE]

...referred to as "human underbrush." And the confederate flag is not a racist symbol. It is liberals who fight for centralized government power. It is Conservatives who fight for states rights, which is a shared trait with the Confederacy, which also happens to be a shared trait with the Constitution and the Founders of this nation. The confederate flag is prevalent in the states where it is the will of the people that it fly, and Conservatives are all about the will of the people.

[DavidDLPE]

Remember this when evaluating the difference between liberals and Conservatives, and this has been true going back to the time of our Founders, who would most definitely today be staunchly Conservative...

Liberals measure the success of welfare programs by how many people they are helping with it.

Conservatives measure the success of welfare programs by how many people they help off of it.

[DavidDLPE]

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

Liberals give men fish because they rely upon the dependence of those men upon themselves so the liberals can stay in power.

Conservatives teach men to fish because they know that true power rests in enabling others to take care of themselves.

[DavidDLPE]

Don't know about that. If anyone ever bothered to research it, it was actually Republicans who led the charge on civil rights. It was the white southern democrats who blocked and voted against such movements. Two such congressmen who are on record with their votes against civil rights legislation are Al Gore's father and Senator Robert KKK Byrd, both democrats.

[nrobyar]

Once again, Huckabee proves just what a great leader he is and that he is visionary in the direction that is best for a united country. Huck unites.....

[SpicyTim]

I LIKE JOHN...

Oh, I mean MIKE!

HUCK in '08!!

[DavidDLPE]

Ok, that got a chuckle. (John Huckabee)

Al Sharpton should have his rights to free speech revoked. He and Jesse Jackson are the ambulance chasing, business extorting civil rights mafia.

[404errorfilenotfound]

Sharpton is a buffoon. Huckabee is correct. The Republican Party has a better civil rights record--from their roots in abolitionism to helping pass the Civil Rights Act over the Dixiecrats.

[eelzen]

When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act most racist democrats left the democratic party. In 1980 Reagan welcomed them into the Republican party and it helped him become President. It was call the southern strategy.

[404errorfilenotfound]

You're telling me Reagan won the 1980 election because of the southern strategy??Where did you pick up that nonsense? Wikipedia? Carter more or less set himself up for defeat with staglation and the Iran hostage crisis. Reagan could've won easily w/out courting the white southerners. Anyway, the dixiecrats-turned-Republicans died out w/ Thurmond.

[eelzen]

I'm not telling you anything. I was just pointing out a well known fact that makes Huckabee's claim about the GOP being the better party on civil rights laughable.