Posted on 03/07/2011 2:34:10 AM PST by RobinMasters
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told a radio host today there is no need for legislation to make future presidential candidates prove their birthplace to determine eligibility for office, fearing such a bill would be seen as "a swipe" at Barack Obama.
Huckabee, who sought the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2008, was speaking to WND's Jerusalem bureau chief and investigative reporter Aaron Klein on Klein's WABC Radio program.
"For 2012, so that there is no controversy in the future," Klein asked Huckabee, "do you personally support some form of legislation that would call for every presidential candidate putting Obama aside, just in general, every presidential candidate to prove his place of birth?"
"For the most part, Aaron, I don't even think it's necessary," Huckabee responded. "We pretty much have our biographies. The news media is going to delve into everything imaginable. I think sometimes that piece of legislation might look like a swipe at Obama.
"I don't believe Obama was born overseas, I believe he was born in Hawaii," Huckabee continued. "I have no doubts about his Hawaiian birth."
Huckabee's statement occurs at approximately the 7:00 mark of the following audio file:
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
Mr. Land certainly invented his own “traditional standard of proof”, eh? This is like a civil dispute between two parties, not a criminal trial. No party has a presumptive claim on truth.
Typos in my post 100 to you “Theyll wonder if I am talking about you.”
In the simplest of terms.....One hides something if he has something to hide. Still I believe we’ve all been fooled.
So the Huckster spends a week casting all sorts of doubt on Obama’s birthplace and closes it out by saying no legislation checking the constitutional qualifications of the president is necessary? He really is a boob.
Mr. Land certainly invented his own traditional standard of proof, eh? This is like a civil dispute between two parties, not a criminal trial. No party has a presumptive claim on truth.
Claimant. Not defendant. And it is not burden of proof, rather it is that the legitimacy of a claim to a title is disputed. The proofs each EQUAL side must be heard and weighed. See Quit Claims, or Quo Warranto. No such hearing has been granted.
This has been a mockery of law and process of law.
Just to note that I had not read your post before I responded right below that post, some time later. That is we both identified the obvious failing of Mr. Land’s ruling independently. And it is so terrible a failing of a ruling that I refuse to use Judge rather than “Mr.”
That seems awfully strange. How many friends would the rookie Hussein have on Facebook - two?
I'm still thinking about the yearbooks and who is in them. Those folks could probably answer a few questions about Barry. You think those books are online?
GO_ALONG_TO_GET_ALONG_PING!
What did Mr. Land labor so hard at? This is a ridiculous ruling, there is no labor in it. You are right. Mr. is too elevated a title for the man who gives such a ruling. “Occupant” then!
According to you (with no attribution)...According to the Hawaii state Department of Health, the abstracts were first introduced in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records.
Can you state where you came by this or is this your opinion? You seem to be quoting "the Hawaii state Department of Health" so I was just wondering which particular person said that.
And here is what I found which is just not the same as what you're saying...
"When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don't destroy records."
Okubo affirmed that beginning in 2001, all vital records, including birth records, moved to electronic formats.
"Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department," she insisted. "We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have."
So you're saying, or implying, that Hawaii never produced any abstract birth certificates before 2001 and that the concept of abstract documents only came into being in Hawaii in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records?
Huck makes me want to puke.
You know, every time you make a comment to me I feel that I’m hitting close to the mark ‘cause you come riding in like a Pale Rider ready to crush everything under your hooves.
You never make any comments to me otherwise.
According to you (with no attribution)...According to the Hawaii state Department of Health, the abstracts were first introduced in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records.
Can you state where you came by this or is this your opinion? You seem to be quoting “the Hawaii state Department of Health” so I was just wondering which particular person said that.
And here is what I found which is just not the same as what you’re saying...
“When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don’t destroy records.”
Okubo affirmed that beginning in 2001, all vital records, including birth records, moved to electronic formats.
“Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department,” she insisted. “We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have.”
So you’re saying, or implying, that Hawaii never produced any abstract birth certificates before 2001 and that the concept of abstract documents only came into being in Hawaii in 2001 when Hawaii digitized its birth records?
This judge has absolutely no clue what electoral quo warranto means nor how it is applied. It is truly astounding how many justices and attorneys in this nation either a) ignore the laws or b) do not understand the laws.
Being elected is not a right. Like driving, it is a privilege, one requiring the person holding the license or title to prove themselves worthy of holding that privilege.
Claimant. Not defendant. And it is not burden of proof, rather it is that the legitimacy of a claim to a title is disputed. The proofs each EQUAL side must be heard and weighed. See Quit Claims, or Quo Warranto. No such hearing has been granted.
This has been a mockery of law and process of law.
For example, here’s the cover sheet for an Obama eligibility quo warranto filing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25988373/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-1-1-Civil-Cover-Sheet-Gov-uscourts-dcd-140567-1-1
And here’s the docket for the first case heard today on appeal at the Supreme Court:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv02254/134576/
And here’s the docket for the original “Obama is ineligible” civil suit:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/
How’s that dissertation coming?
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.