Posted on 03/23/2005 10:17:56 PM PST by Former Military Chick
Glad to know one of my threads is met with appreciation, thank you.
I am curious about the remedy he was seeking from the court, stop the recall, prevent the vote and elect me for life?
In the same vein, does he use US money? Something about "in God we trust" on most of it.......
It must suck to be this guy.
I wonder if he had to take an oath of office for the gubernmint job and what it was...
I think it's reason enough. When public officials refuse to even STAND for the Pledge, the burden is on them to convince the public that they are good citizens. If they can't, well, tough titty.
Good riddance to this prycke ... May the same thing happen to everyone else like him.
Someone more competent than I needs to post the cranky old lady. "One Nation under God, or you can bite my skinny old butt and leave."
It's not mandatory, not in Estes Park or anywhere else. The voters were offended so they voted him out. Mr. Habecker doesn't understand that voters aren't legally subject to special reasons for how they vote. In Estes Park, voters don't like people who won't stand for the pledge. Habecker knew this, chose to grandstand and now he's whining about the predictable outcome.
You did proclaim your loyalty, Mr. Habecker -- to agnosticism. And your pointed refusal to declare your loyalty to your country didn't go unnoticed either. I get you're just not much of a crowd pleaser.
It wasn't mandatory. If so, this fool would be in a cell or coffin.
A recall election, when properly qualified for the ballot, doesn't state why the recall is being executed, it merely lets a voter cast his ballot in secret for reasons that are his secret. The voters kicked him fair and square 'cause they didn't want the whiner to represent them.
In fact, Habecker stood for the pledge at these meetings for months before he suddenly decided he just couldn't bear standing for our flag and country -- not that he's unpatriotic or anything.
Not to a community that takes loyalty to country very seriously. It's not petty to them and they are the voters. I happen to share their values and would have voted him out too. That's how it's done in American communities -- you vote your values. If you live in San Francisco, you vote your values of homosexuality, abortion, forced minority hiring, high minimum wage and opposition to American foreign policy. That's your right in that community. In Estes Park, you vote your values of patriotism and respect for God. That's your right in Estes Park. Get it?
Would you want someone who relied only on secular morality, with no acknowledgement of any higher power to run your world? Maybe they consider themselves a higher power.
IMHO, the refusal speaks volumes, it does not just refuse to speak a couple of words.
That he stand up (or not) for what he believes is commendable, but the voters have decided he can stand somewhere else.
In 1971, Lori joined the US Navy and became the first female Navy broadcaster at American Forces Radio in Europe stationed in Rota Spain. She was selected for Officer Candidate School in 1972 and was commissioned in 1973 as an Ensign. Her career assignments included Public Affairs Officer, Medical Recruiter, Administration Director, Marketing and Advertising Director, and Officer-in-Charge of a 10 state recruiting region. Awarded Federal Woman of the Year, 1987, New Orleans, Louisiana, Navy Commendation medal, awarded Captain Francis C. Meyers Senior Leadership Award, 1993, and retired as Commander, USNR, 2001.
I agree with you and I wouldn't have voted for him in the first place. If they recalled him for an array of reasons, and this is just one I don't take issue with it...and ultimately, they can chose to recall whomever they wish, but if he was removed ONLY because of the pledge thing, then it's setting a bad precedent. Would you want to live in a community that chose to exclude people who professed a faith in God? Would it be fair to remove someone from office simply on that basis? The removal of Judge Moore was not fair or legitimate and I'd rather not see anyone targeted simply on this basis. Personally I won't chose someone who doesn't have some grounding in God, but I don't think it's wise to institute it in our system because it will eventually come around to be abused.
IMHO, the refusal speaks volumes, it does not just refuse to speak a couple of words.
I agree. I'm not standing up for him as a person, it's probably best to have him out of office, but if the only reason he was removed was the pledge then it's setting a bad precedent. I'm not saying they are violating laws, simply making an unwise choice.
Apparently. Guess he thinks he has a Constitutional entitlement to hold a public office in spite of the will of the voters.
He was removed for using his position as a Trustee as a platform for his personal protest. No one ever said he had to recite the Pledge or even be in the room when it was recited. Click on the keyword "estespark" and you will find all FR threads on this story going back to last Oct.
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.