Huckabee: No need for birth-certificate legislation

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:

Dred Scott filed his suit in 1846. It took 11 years to get a ruling. ALL THE PROCESSES OF LAW WERE FOLLOWED. In the end he was ruled a sub-human, and not only him, but all descended from black Africans. That was a novel ruling. What Judicial BOLDNESS!

Scott was freed when his owner, a widow, married an well-off abolitionist. He lived as free sub-human for 17 months before consumption got him.

Scott’s widow and children survived to live long enough to have the LAW declare them human again. But that took a great blood-filled war.

The estimates of the dead from that war: 600,000.

Isn’t scrupulous legal process grand?

You’re comparing one lawsuit to thirteen? Talk about comparing 19th Century apples to 21st Century oranges!

The better answer: To fix mistakes Judges make. Isn’t it shocking that in “30 rulings” not one mistake has been made that produced any hearings on disputed facts, presenting of evidence, subpoena, depositions or cross-examinations.

By the way none of the rulings were on Obama’s eligibility were they? They were on legal process.

And the DC Code does not trump the Constitution.

Ha, you come up with an answer to fit your bias!

Since nearly every Obama eligibility lawsuit has been dismissed for lack of standing to bring a suit under Article III of the Constitution, the only issue for appeals courts to consider was did the trial court err in not granting standing to the plaintiffs.

The term “quo warranto” does not appear in the US Constitution. The process for removing a sitting president is via impeachment, trial in the Senate and conviction or via resignation, as was the case with Richard Milhouse Nixon.

If the House Republicans conducted congressional hearings and produced enough evidence against Obama’s eligibility that he became “damaged goods,” the Democrats would force him to step down for the good of the Party.

james, you miss the point. The defendant has a burden of proof that exists outside of the lawsuit. All the plaintiff has to prove is that Obama never met that original burden of proof.

Last time I looked Barack Hussein Obama II was the 44th President of the United States. No Court of Law and no act of Congress has ruled any differently.

Scores of plaintiffs have failed in their attempts to “prove that Obama never met that original burden of proof.”

Those who don’t believe that he has met the burden of proof on constitutional eligibility have the option of voting against him on the first Tuesday in November, 2012.

Earlier I mentioned the 1960’s Civil Right’s JUDICIAL remedies of forced busing and affirmative action. Where from did those Judicial powers arise?

Is Obama holding office today, only because of those who call themselves “conservative” judges are loathe to engage in the kind of bold remedies that “liberal” judges impose and inject into the legal system? Obama arose due to affirmative action — his absence of scholarship, while being Law Review at Harvard testifies to that, in addition to other doors that opened for him with no effort on his behalf — and by affirmative inaction he remains today a despotic usurper in office.

Earlier I mentioned the 1960’s Civil Right’s JUDICIAL remedies of forced busing and affirmative action. Where from did those Judicial powers arise?

Well, that’s certainly one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that Obama campaigned for a year and a half to win his party’s nomination in primary elections. He won primaries in 35 states and territories plus he won a number of state caucuses as well.

Then he raised three-quarters of a billion dollars in campaign funds. He competed for four months against his Republican opponent and managed to accumulate 69,456,987 popular votes and 365 Electoral College votes.

Then he had his Electoral College votes counted and certified by Vice President Dick Cheney serving as President of the Senate at a Joint Session of Congress and not one Representative or Senator out of 535 members of Congress submitted a written objection to the certification of the Electoral College vote.

He was then sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts and there have been 91 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligibility in courts all across the nation including 13 attempts at the Supreme Court and the eligibility scoreboard is Challengers: 0/Obama: 91.

Congress has initiated no hearings on his eligibility and no impeachment hearings have even been suggested.

That’s a slightly different way to look at it.

For that amazing accomplishment, and it was indeed, he was awarded a Nobel Prize. Although most view that prize as given so as to slapdown the traditional heritage, history and establishment US. Obama was clearly -- to all the world -- nearly absent of the ideals and legacy of our heritage. That's what "Change" meant: radical throwing off of the old US -- and the whole world knew it!

But you now have provided an equally AWESOME statistic.

In a string of 91 court rulings NOT ONE HAS HEARD ANY FACTS OR TESTIMONY AS TO THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE.

Try tossing a coin 91 times and coming up "HEADS" every time. The odds are 1 in 2.5 times 10 to the 27th power. That means IMPOSSIBLE. But it happened. Yes, indeed. It happened.

I'm not a superstitious person. I'm not looking for an anti-Christ, or even a Messiah. The later would be nice, but I'm not wasting time looking or waiting.

But since Obama spoke to that Democratic Convention some years ago, a series of extraordinarily unlikely events have occurred. The odds are way too long, of his being where he is, and of no one challenging his grand con even a bit successfully, even as it is almost beyond denial that there many legitimate challenges to his legitimacy. As you said, in effect: his coin came up heads 91 times in a row.

Who knows? If someone wanted to believe in an anti-Christ there's certainly a lot of extraordinary circumstances of an anti-Christ sort in the Obama narrative.

Maybe we should nickname him "Damian".

Obama won the election. In fact, during the election he claimed, during a debate, that the management of the election as his managerial experience. It was, in fact, his single success against the odds. In all his other endeavors he seems to have either (1) failed, (2) been carried by others, (3) received special “insider” treatment to gain entry or office, (4) propelled by affirmative action, (5) achieved by smooth presentation or (6) hidden the results.
For that amazing accomplishment, and it was indeed, he was awarded a Nobel Prize. Although most view that prize as given so as to slapdown the traditional heritage, history and establishment US. Obama was clearly — to all the world — nearly absent of the ideals and legacy of our heritage. That’s what “Change” meant: radical throwing off of the old US — and the whole world knew it!

But you now have provided an equally AWESOME statistic.

In a string of 91 court rulings NOT ONE HAS HEARD ANY FACTS OR TESTIMONY AS TO THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE.

Try tossing a coin 91 times and coming up “HEADS” every time. The odds are 1 in 2.5 times 10 to the 27th power. That means IMPOSSIBLE. But it happened. Yes, indeed. It happened.

I’m not a superstitious person. I’m not looking for an anti-Christ, or even a Messiah. The later would be nice, but I’m not wasting time looking or waiting.

Who knows? If someone wanted to believe in an anti-Christ there’s certainly a lot of extraordinary circumstances of an anti-Christ sort in the Obama narrative.

Maybe we should nickname him “Damian”.

From the first Obama eligibility lawsuit to be adjudicated, Berg v Obama, the word that comes up most often in Judges’ decisions is “frivolous.”
Frivolous lawsuits get tossed. Orly Taitz was fined $20,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The Supreme Court upheld her sanction.
Other birther attorneys have had to show cause and pay court costs for filing frivolous lawsuits that waste a Court’s time with nonsense.

As Governor Sarah Palin has said, issues of Obama’s eligibility are “distracting” and “annoying.” Judges agree with the former Governor.

If you want a serious discussion of Obama’s eligibility to be President, get Congress to hold hearings and/or find a prosecuting attorney willing to conduct a grand jury investigation.

Hue and cry.

In 1857 the courts did not hear it. It was frivolous for a black slave to presume to bring a court case. It was a distraction, a nuisance, they were after all, sub-human. A man did bring a Grand Jury of sorts, it being an active Jury. He brought it to Harper’s Ferry, Virginia in 1859. By April less than two years later, the Civil War broke out. Less than two years.

Now Obama’s case is not like that. No such insurrection will arise from not hearing it. But the danger of not hearing that hue and cry is as great. For if Obama is not removed from office the nation may not survive, as a Republic, until the new President arrives in late January 2013. Obama has shown how dangerous he can be, but he has not yet completed his demonstration.

Do you imagine a civil war will be avoided here?

Obama’s allies call for it. Have you been deaf or blind to the reports of their words?

Obama in his thug-king’s passive-aggressive verbal framing has called for it too.

91 heads.

Here’s an example of a Judicial mistake. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/20/chris-christie-commutes-gun-sentence-of-brian-aitken/

The Judge has retired, full pension. An esteemed and celebrated man in his community.

Judges be ashamed for once!

You sure like comparing apples to oranges!

If I were to give the same test question to primary school students all across the nation: “what does two plus two equal?” I don’t think it would be beyond the realm of possiblility that I would get 91 or 100 answers that were all the same: “two plus two equals four.”

Judicial rulings are more like arithmetic questions and answers than they are like flips of a coin and just because one judge makes a judicial error doesn’t mean that ALL judges make judicial errors.

There are Obama eligibility lawsuits that have been heard by an original trial court, a state level court of appeals, a state Supreme Court, a US District Court, a US Court of Appeals and a conference at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Hue and cry.

Do you imagine a civil war will be avoided here?

Obama’s allies call for it. Have you been deaf or blind to the reports of their words?

Obama in his thug-king’s passive-aggressive verbal framing has called for it too.

Dred Scott’s case had a judicial history, just like Obama eligibility cases. Mr. Scott first sued in a Missouri court, Scott v Emerson. The case then went to the Supreme Court of Missouri and then on to the Supreme Court of the United States. Having one’s day in court does not guarantee a legal victory. The Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v Sanford was a primary reason for the ratification of the 14th Amendment and without the 14th Amendment, Barack Hussein Obama II would not be President of the United States.

Your “civil war/revolt” hyperbole is just silliness and not worthy of a response from me.

Obama currently has a 46% positive and 46% percent negative composite job approval rating when averaging all of the latest national polls and he has a 52% positive personal favorability rating. He’s a mediocre president in the eyes of the vast majority of the American people. The republic will survive the Obama presidency, whether it’s four or eight years long. Four years of Obama will be 2% of the history of the Republic and eight years of Obama will be 4% of the history of the Republic.

Unfortunately the alarm about Obama and his cohort seeking to foment a rebellion in America in the coming months -- or years if they determine he can risk a re-election -- is far from hyperbole.

The situation is Wisconsin is part of it, as is the constant harm and danger they have allowed to fester on the Mexican border. As is the outreach and coordination with the Muslim Brotherhood. The trips by Obama associates to these places in an uproar -- including Code Pink -- are to bring on a worldwide revolution and chaos. Each day they progress further towards such a national calamity. This is war, just as Bloody Kansas may be counted as part of the War Against Slavery.

Obama's friend and Special Advisor, another Chicago revolutionary scene fellow traveler had these words for collage students in Colorado three days ago:

"They [the millennials] know more than their parents and grandparents. There once was a basis for young people to respect old people." He then used milking a cow as his example of the knowledge that grandpa could give junior. But, junior is now smarter than mom, dad, & grandpa because at the age of 6, junior knows how to work a DVD player.
-- El Paso Tea Party Report "Van Jones in Colorado Springs"

It is a tragic characteristic of the Marxist revolutions of the late 20th Century that they break the chain of national and cultural traditions by destruction of establishments and documents, and also by killing off the old generation. In China and Cambodia TWO generations were "erased". That's reality. Not hyperbole.

Obama and his crew have a perverted fondness for Marxist revolution and for Mao's in particular. In the years the Weathermen were actively killing and seeking to kill fellow Americans it was, Bill Ayers, Obama's dear close friend and mentor, who is speaking in the excerpt of a film ...

In No Place to Hide, Grathwohl explains that the Weathermen actually believed that they would be successful in overthrowing the U.S. government and that, with the help of the Cubans, Chinese, Russians, and North Vietnamese, they would occupy America. Americans would have to be "re-educated" in camps, similar to what the communists did in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and other countries they had taken over. Here is one of the chilling revelations Larry Grathwohl made in the film:
I asked, "Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."
Twenty-five million people.
---Obama's Friend Ayers, New American web magazine, by William F. Jasper, 31 October 2008

Unfortunately the alarm about Obama and his cohort seeking to foment a rebellion in America in the coming months — or years if they determine he can risk a re-election — is far from hyperbole.
The situation is Wisconsin is part of it, as is the constant harm and danger they have allowed to fester on the Mexican border. As is the outreach and coordination with the Muslim Brotherhood. The trips by Obama associates to these places in an uproar — including Code Pink — are to bring on a worldwide revolution and chaos. Each day they progress further towards such a national calamity. This is war, just as Bloody Kansas may be counted as part of the War Against Slavery.

Obama’s friend and Special Advisor, another Chicago revolutionary scene fellow traveler had these words for collage students in Colorado three days ago:

“They [the millennials] know more than their parents and grandparents. There once was a basis for young people to respect old people.” He then used milking a cow as his example of the knowledge that grandpa could give junior. But, junior is now smarter than mom, dad, & grandpa because at the age of 6, junior knows how to work a DVD player.
— El Paso Tea Party Report “Van Jones in Colorado Springs”
It is a tragic characteristic of the Marxist revolutions of the late 20th Century that they break the chain of national and cultural traditions by destruction of establishments and documents, and also by killing off the old generation. In China and Cambodia TWO generations were “erased”. That’s reality. Not hyperbole.
Obama and his crew have a perverted fondness for Marxist revolution and for Mao’s in particular. In the years the Weathermen were actively killing and seeking to kill fellow Americans it was, Bill Ayers, Obama’s dear close friend and mentor, who is speaking in the excerpt of a film ...

In No Place to Hide, Grathwohl explains that the Weathermen actually believed that they would be successful in overthrowing the U.S. government and that, with the help of the Cubans, Chinese, Russians, and North Vietnamese, they would occupy America. Americans would have to be “re-educated” in camps, similar to what the communists did in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and other countries they had taken over. Here is one of the chilling revelations Larry Grathwohl made in the film:
I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

-—Obama’s Friend Ayers, New American web magazine, by William F. Jasper, 31 October 2008

I don’t see what any of the above has to do with whether Obama is eligible as a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1.
If you want an investigation of Obama’s friends and associates, the House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform can do that or a special committee to look into Obama’s relationships can be convened at any time.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v Sanford was a primary reason for the ratification of the 14th Amendment and without the 14th Amendment, Barack Hussein Obama II would not be President of the United States.

Speaking of the descendants of slaves, Barack Hussein Obama II, is the descendant of slave owners and slave traders on BOTH sides of his family. He is NOT a descendant of slaves. The citizenship provision of the 14th never applied to him. His dad, Barack Obama, Sr, was a member of the east African Luo Tribe, a tribe which became powerful through the wealth gained in the slave trade with Arabs.

His mother's family line also includes slaveowners.

What irony that the man you and so so many claim as perhaps the most potent demonstration of how America has thrown off slavery has himself only family connections to and a family heritage of slave trading and ownership, and none to having been an oppressed slave! Slavery and slave trading continues in Africa today, and almost certainly Luo Tribe members are still involved in it.

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.