Four caskets arrive for the Dec. 8 memorial service for four slain police officers in Tacoma, Wash. (photo: Seattle Times)
Huckabee's deadly gamble
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
December 9, 2009
FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR MIKE HUCKABEE wasn't mincing words last week when he blasted criticism of the clemency he granted Maurice Clemmons in 2000 -- clemency that ultimately led to the Thanksgiving weekend murder of four Washington state police officers -- as "disgusting," or when he deplored "how sick our society has become that people are more concerned about a campaign three years from now" -- the 2012 presidential campaign -- "than those grieving families in Washington."
"Disgusting" and "sick" are strong words. But this isn't the first time Huckabee has lashed out at critics of his clemency decisions.
In 2004, when the then-governor's commutation enabled Eugene Fields -- who had been given a six-year sentence for his fourth drunk-driving conviction -- to walk free after less than eight months behind bars, the director of Arkansas Mothers Against Drunk Driving complained. "We are deeply disturbed," she said, "at the message this sends to those who faithfully enforce, prosecute, adjudicate, serve on juries, and suffer the consequences of drunk driving offenders." Huckabee fired off an angry letter accusing MADD of trying to "fan the flames of controversy" and pandering to "the unusual curiosity of certain media members."
Even more supercilious was the reply received by prosecutor Robert Herzfeld, who wrote a letter calling Huckabee's clemency policies "fatally flawed" and suggesting that it would be "more respectful to the people of Arkansas" for Huckabee to explain his reasons when issuing a pardon or commutation. From Huckabee's office came a mocking rejoinder: "The governor read your letter and laughed out loud. He wanted me to respond to you. I wish you success as you cut down on your caffeine consumption."
Huckabee holds himself out as an exemplar and judge of good character -- two of his books are titled Character Makes a Difference and Character IS the Issue -- but so far he has not mustered the integrity to admit that Herzfeld was right: His promiscuous approach to executive clemency has indeed proved indeed fatal. During his 10½ years as governor, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of an astonishing 1,033 criminals (including 12 convicted murderers) -- more than twice as many grants of clemency as his three immediate predecessors combined. Had Huckabee been less eager to usher Clemmons to an early release, Mark Renninger, Tina Griswold, Gregory Richards, and Ronnie Owens -- the four police officers gunned down in a Tacoma, Wash., coffee shop last month -- might still be alive.
There is no telling how many innocents have been victimized by Huckabee's parolees. The shocking massacre in Tacoma made headlines nationwide, but what about the other violent criminals set free thanks to a Huckabee commutation? How many of them went onto commit new rapes, new armed robberies, new assaults? How many of them will do so in the years ahead?
Huckabee defends himself by pointing out that the Clemmons whose sentence he commuted in 2000 was not yet a rapist and murderer. "If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later," Huckabee insists, "I obviously would have made a different decision."
Thousands of mourners salute as coffins bearing the four slain police officers are carried out of the Tacoma Dome following the memorial service on Dec. 8. (Photo: Seattle Times)
But that doesn't explain why Huckabee saw fit to overrule the Arkansas judges and jurors who saw Clemmons up close, tried his criminal cases, heard the evidence for and against him, sized him up as a dangerous, violent, unrepentant thug, and concluded not only that he was guilty, but that he deserved to be sentenced to a combined 108 years in prison. The original judges and jurors were no more prophetically endowed than Huckabee, but they were right about Clemmons. Huckabee, along with Arkansas' parole board, was wrong. He should have the backbone to say so.
It doesn't take a seer to know that when criminals are released early, more crime follows. In 2002, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, summarizing data from the largest recidivism study ever conducted in the United States, reported that more than 67 percent of former inmates released from state prison are rearrested for at least one serious new crime within three years. Between 1994 and 1997, criminals paroled in just 15 states racked up 744,000 new arrest charges. "These charges," the bureau noted, "included almost 21,000 homicides, 200,000 robberies, 50,000 rapes and sexual assaults, and almost 300,000 assaults."
Other than in cases of manifest injustice, when a judge and jury say a criminal belongs behind bars, clemency should be all but unthinkable. Governors have no business gambling with the lives and safety of their constituents. Huckabee "laughed out loud" when a prosecutor warned him that early release can be fatal.
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens