Thursday, 13 December 2007
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
Sunday, 9 December 2007
Huckabee's 9-Point Immigration Strategy
The Secure America Plan
All information here comes directly from http://www.mikehuckabee.com/.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=26
A 9-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security
Overview: Implement a broad-based strategy that commits the resources of the federal government to the enforcement of our immigration laws and results in the attrition of the illegal immigrant population.
1. Build the Fence
Ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along the border by July 1, 2010.
Ensure that the border fence construction is completed by July 1, 2010.
2. Increase Border Patrol
Increase the number of border patrol agents.
Fully support all law enforcement personnel tasked with enforcing immigration law.
3. Prevent Amnesty
Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.
Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.
4. Enforce the Law on Employers
Employment is the chief draw for most illegal immigrants and denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy.
Impose steep fines and penalties on employers that violate the law.
Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.
Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don't match the employees' names.*
5. Establish an Economic Border
Move toward passage of the FairTax.
The FairTax provides an extra layer of security by creating an economic disincentive to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.
6. Empower Local Authorities
Promote better cooperation on enforcement by supporting legislative measures such as the CLEAR Act, which aims to systematize the relationship between local law and federal immigration officials.
Encourage immigration-law training for police. Local authorities must be provided the tools, training, and funding they need so local police can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.
7. Ensure Document Security
End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of foreign visitors. Since these countries account for the vast majority of foreigners coming here (85 percent), such a policy clearly violates Congress' intent in mandating this check-in/check-out system.
Reject Mexico's "matricula consular" card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.
8. Discourage Dual Citizenship
Inform foreign governments when their former citizens become naturalized U.S. citizens.
Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status (e.g., using a foreign passport, voting in elections in both a foreign country and the U.S.).
9. Modernize the Process of Legal Immigration
Eliminate the visa lottery system and the admission category for adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.
Increase visas for highly-skilled and highly-educated applicants.
Expedite processing for those who serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Improve our immigration process so that those patiently and responsibly seeking to come here legally will not have to wait decades to share in the American dream. Governor Huckabee has always been grateful to live in a country that people are trying to break into, rather than break out of.
*This policy will be drafted to comply with the final federal court decisions on this issue.
Note: This plan is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. ("Re: Immigration: Ten Points for a Successful Presidential Candidate," National Review, May 23, 2005.)
Issues
The Secure America Plan
Faith and Politics
Sanctity of Life
Veterans' Bill Of Rights
Education And The Arts
Health Care
Taxes/Economy
Marriage
Energy Independence
Immigration
National Security/Foreign Policy: Iraq
National Security/Foreign Policy: War On Terror
Foreign Policy: Israel
Agriculture
Crisis Management
2nd Amendment Rights
Vertical Politics
Truth Squad
Huckabee Store
Contribute
Recent Blog Posts
December 08, 2007Immigration: Secure America Plan
December 08, 2007Huckabee Up In Michigan
December 08, 2007Video: The Rules Are About To Change
December 07, 2007Huckabee Roundup
December 07, 2007HUCKABOOM! Newsweek Poll
All information here comes directly from http://www.mikehuckabee.com/.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=26
A 9-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security
Overview: Implement a broad-based strategy that commits the resources of the federal government to the enforcement of our immigration laws and results in the attrition of the illegal immigrant population.
1. Build the Fence
Ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along the border by July 1, 2010.
Ensure that the border fence construction is completed by July 1, 2010.
2. Increase Border Patrol
Increase the number of border patrol agents.
Fully support all law enforcement personnel tasked with enforcing immigration law.
3. Prevent Amnesty
Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.
Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.
4. Enforce the Law on Employers
Employment is the chief draw for most illegal immigrants and denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy.
Impose steep fines and penalties on employers that violate the law.
Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.
Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don't match the employees' names.*
5. Establish an Economic Border
Move toward passage of the FairTax.
The FairTax provides an extra layer of security by creating an economic disincentive to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.
6. Empower Local Authorities
Promote better cooperation on enforcement by supporting legislative measures such as the CLEAR Act, which aims to systematize the relationship between local law and federal immigration officials.
Encourage immigration-law training for police. Local authorities must be provided the tools, training, and funding they need so local police can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.
7. Ensure Document Security
End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of foreign visitors. Since these countries account for the vast majority of foreigners coming here (85 percent), such a policy clearly violates Congress' intent in mandating this check-in/check-out system.
Reject Mexico's "matricula consular" card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.
8. Discourage Dual Citizenship
Inform foreign governments when their former citizens become naturalized U.S. citizens.
Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status (e.g., using a foreign passport, voting in elections in both a foreign country and the U.S.).
9. Modernize the Process of Legal Immigration
Eliminate the visa lottery system and the admission category for adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.
Increase visas for highly-skilled and highly-educated applicants.
Expedite processing for those who serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Improve our immigration process so that those patiently and responsibly seeking to come here legally will not have to wait decades to share in the American dream. Governor Huckabee has always been grateful to live in a country that people are trying to break into, rather than break out of.
*This policy will be drafted to comply with the final federal court decisions on this issue.
Note: This plan is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. ("Re: Immigration: Ten Points for a Successful Presidential Candidate," National Review, May 23, 2005.)
Issues
The Secure America Plan
Faith and Politics
Sanctity of Life
Veterans' Bill Of Rights
Education And The Arts
Health Care
Taxes/Economy
Marriage
Energy Independence
Immigration
National Security/Foreign Policy: Iraq
National Security/Foreign Policy: War On Terror
Foreign Policy: Israel
Agriculture
Crisis Management
2nd Amendment Rights
Vertical Politics
Truth Squad
Huckabee Store
Contribute
Recent Blog Posts
December 08, 2007Immigration: Secure America Plan
December 08, 2007Huckabee Up In Michigan
December 08, 2007Video: The Rules Are About To Change
December 07, 2007Huckabee Roundup
December 07, 2007HUCKABOOM! Newsweek Poll
Saturday, 8 December 2007
AIDS FUNDING - Huckabee
All information below is available on http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
News Release: Presidential Candidate, Governor Mike Huckabee Statement on AIDS Funding
December 08, 2007
Little Rock, AR - In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS. My concern, as a Senate candidate at the time, was to deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease.
Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years. Recall that in 1991, Kimberly Bergalis testified in front of Congress after contracting HIV from her dentist, and that summer a study was published showing that HIV was transmitted through breastmilk more easily than had been thought. But the federal government provided some guidelines: Also in 1991 the Centers for Disease Control recommended restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive health care workers.
At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and the possibility of epidemic. In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus, following traditional medical practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.
We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with a lower level of contact than with TB. But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population – if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last.
My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals. We must prevent new infections and provide more accessible care. We must do everything possible to transform the promise of a vaccine and a cure into reality.
Furthermore, I am proud that the United States has led the global battle against HIV/ AIDS. We have both a strategic interest as the world's only superpower and a moral obligation as the world's richest country to continue to do so until this scourge is a memory.
I supported the current Administration’s proposal to double our initial commitment from $15 billion to $30 billion over the next five years for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR has already done an extraordinary amount of good, by providing drugs for over a million people and care for four-and-a-half million people, but it expires in 2008 and must be reauthorized. I support an increase in our commitment to the Global Fund. Through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, we can do our fair share to meet the Millennium Development Goals we affirmed in 2000, which include universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care.
News Release: Presidential Candidate, Governor Mike Huckabee Statement on AIDS Funding
December 08, 2007
Little Rock, AR - In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS. My concern, as a Senate candidate at the time, was to deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease.
Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years. Recall that in 1991, Kimberly Bergalis testified in front of Congress after contracting HIV from her dentist, and that summer a study was published showing that HIV was transmitted through breastmilk more easily than had been thought. But the federal government provided some guidelines: Also in 1991 the Centers for Disease Control recommended restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive health care workers.
At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and the possibility of epidemic. In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus, following traditional medical practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.
We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with a lower level of contact than with TB. But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population – if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last.
My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals. We must prevent new infections and provide more accessible care. We must do everything possible to transform the promise of a vaccine and a cure into reality.
Furthermore, I am proud that the United States has led the global battle against HIV/ AIDS. We have both a strategic interest as the world's only superpower and a moral obligation as the world's richest country to continue to do so until this scourge is a memory.
I supported the current Administration’s proposal to double our initial commitment from $15 billion to $30 billion over the next five years for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR has already done an extraordinary amount of good, by providing drugs for over a million people and care for four-and-a-half million people, but it expires in 2008 and must be reauthorized. I support an increase in our commitment to the Global Fund. Through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, we can do our fair share to meet the Millennium Development Goals we affirmed in 2000, which include universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care.
Friday, 7 December 2007
WRONG - DuMond Case Accusation
December 06, 2007
FORMER HUCKABEE AIDE DENOUNCES HUFFPO DISTORTION;
Corroborates Huckabee Account of Disputed Meeting:
FORMER HUCKABEE AIDE DENOUNCES HUFFPO DISTORTION;
Corroborates Huckabee Account of Disputed Meeting:
"He was not trying to influence the Board"
A report on the left-wing blog, The Huffington Post makes allegations against Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee that are inaccurate and distort the truth. According to the HuffPo article, Olan W. "Butch" Reeves, a former senior aide of former Governor Mike Huckabee, "directly contradicts" the Governor's account of a meeting between himself and the Arkansas state parole board that took place on October 31, 1996.
In fact, Mr. Reeves completely corrobates Mr. Huckabee's account of the meeting.
As background to the controversy, in 1985, Wayne DuMond was convicted of raping Ashley Stephens and was sentenced to life in prison. Subsequently, in 1992 then-Governor of Arkansas, Jim Guy Tucker granted executive clemency for DuMond which commuted his sentence to 39.5 years. This act made DuMond immediately eligible for parole.
In 1996, Mike Huckabee became Governor of Arkansas. That August the Post Prison Transfer Board reviewed a request for a pardon from DuMond and decided to recommend to the Governor that the request had "no merit." That decision was sent to the Governor. The Board's decision is a recommendation and not binding on the Governor.
When the Governor received the file with the recommendation from the Board, his review of the case led him to issue an "intent to grant" the clemency. There then followed a mandatory period for the Governor to receive comments from the public. The DuMond case was very controversial and the Governor received many comments, both supporting and opposing his consideration of a pardon.
During this time period, the Board - which was composed entirely of Democrats appointed either by Bill Clinton, or Jim Guy Tucker -- issued an invitation to the new Republican Governor to come to a meeting to become acquainted and discuss his philosophy of clemency.
Please note a crucial distinction: clemency (or pardon) is separate and distinct from parole. Only the Governor can grant clemency or pardon; the Parole Board reviews and grants parole. The Governor is not involved in parole decisions.
It is this October '96 meeting which is now the focus of attention. One of the Board members, Charles Chastain, is now alleging publicly that the Governor used that meeting to pressure the Board to grant DuMond parole.
In fact, just the opposite is true: Mr. Chastain attempted to dissuade Governor Huckabee from his intent to grant clemency to DuMond.
"They are saying that the Governor was trying to persuade them to grant parole," said Reeves, "it was the other way around, they were trying to persuade him not to grant clemency."
At the time Mr. Reeves served as chief counsel to the Governor and attended the October meeting with Governor Huckabee in his official capacity.
Mr. Reeves asserts categorically that parole for DuMond was "never mentioned" during the meeting. ("I told this guy [Waas], that's not why we had that meeting.") The quotes attributed to Reeves in The Huffington Post article, authored by Murray Waas, all relate to a conversation which was about Governor Huckabee's stated intention to grant DuMond clemency.
This is a very simple distinction that Waas fails to make. The context of the discussion that occurred - and Governor Huckabee has not denied that a discussion occurred - was the question of whether or not Governor Huckabee would grant clemency, not whether or not the Board would grant parole. The Board's decision had already been made and their recommendation was already on the Governor's desk.
In the midst of a general discussion about the Governor's general philosophy related to clemency, one of the Board members asked the Governor about the DuMond case and his intention to grant clemency (which was public knowledge due to the notice of intent.)
The Governor responded by stating that he believed the facts warranted his decision to initiate a notice of intent. As has been reported, he added that he believed DuMond had gotten a bad deal from the justice system. (This goes to the stated purpose of the meeting which was for the Governor to communicate to the Board his clemency philosophy.) Note that this does parallel the quotes attributed to Reeves by Waas in the Huffington Post:
"But, according to Reeves, Huckabee actually told the parole board members that the prison sentence meted out to Dumond for his rape conviction was "outlandish" and "way out of bounds for his crime."
Again, the Governor made these comments to explain his position on the clemency request, not to persuade the Board to grant parole. The Board had already decided against parole. "Parole was not an issue; it didn't come up," said Reeves.
In response to the Governor's explanation of why he intended to grant DuMond clemency, Chastain then stated why he was against it. The Governor, according to Reeves replied, "Well, okay, it's a difference of opinion." And the discussion ended.
The Huffington Post article asserts that the Reeves account contradicts the Governor's version when, in fact, everything Mr. Reeves describes corroborates Governor Huckabee's statement on the issue, as quoted by Waas:
"This stands in stark contrast to Huckabee's assertion, repeated at a press conference today that he "did not ask [the board] to do anything." When asked directly about trying to influence the board, Huckabee responded: "No. I did not. Let me categorically say that I did not."
"He never mentioned parole at that meeting," says Mr. Reeves. "The Governor was talking about clemency."
On January 16, 1997 the Board took up a reconsideration of DuMond's parole request and voted to grant parole with the stipulation that DuMond be paroled out of state.
The vote was as follows:
4 members voted yes. LeRoy Brownlee, Chairman; Fred Allen, Jr.; Ermer Poindexter; Railey Steele;
1 voted no. Dr. Charles Chastain.
There were 2 abstentions. Deborah Suttler and August Pieroni.
That same afternoon the Governor denied the clemency request. He sent a letter to DuMond that has been widely reported saying, (excerpted):
"Dear Wayne, I have reviewed your applications for executive clemency, specifically a commutation and/or pardon. ... My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel now that parole is the best way for your reintegration into society. ... Therefore, after careful consideration ... I have denied your applications."
The Governor's approach to the DuMond case has been consistent. As he expressed in the letter, he did believe that DuMond should be released from prison. However, he denied clemency/pardon FOUR TIMES. Even after the Board granted parole with the out-of-state stipulation, Governor Huckabee denied two subsequent clemency requests. DuMond could not find a state which would take him, so he remained in prison for TWO MORE YEARS. It was during this time that the Governor continued to deny him clemency.
If the Governor was actively seeking to release DuMond, he could have easily done so by granting him clemency. He did not do so.
Finally, September 16, 1999 the Board, during a regular progress report on DuMond, dropped the out-of state condition for parole. The Governor took no action to promote this decision and did not know it was coming.
In October of that year, DuMond was released.
A report on the left-wing blog, The Huffington Post makes allegations against Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee that are inaccurate and distort the truth. According to the HuffPo article, Olan W. "Butch" Reeves, a former senior aide of former Governor Mike Huckabee, "directly contradicts" the Governor's account of a meeting between himself and the Arkansas state parole board that took place on October 31, 1996.
In fact, Mr. Reeves completely corrobates Mr. Huckabee's account of the meeting.
As background to the controversy, in 1985, Wayne DuMond was convicted of raping Ashley Stephens and was sentenced to life in prison. Subsequently, in 1992 then-Governor of Arkansas, Jim Guy Tucker granted executive clemency for DuMond which commuted his sentence to 39.5 years. This act made DuMond immediately eligible for parole.
In 1996, Mike Huckabee became Governor of Arkansas. That August the Post Prison Transfer Board reviewed a request for a pardon from DuMond and decided to recommend to the Governor that the request had "no merit." That decision was sent to the Governor. The Board's decision is a recommendation and not binding on the Governor.
When the Governor received the file with the recommendation from the Board, his review of the case led him to issue an "intent to grant" the clemency. There then followed a mandatory period for the Governor to receive comments from the public. The DuMond case was very controversial and the Governor received many comments, both supporting and opposing his consideration of a pardon.
During this time period, the Board - which was composed entirely of Democrats appointed either by Bill Clinton, or Jim Guy Tucker -- issued an invitation to the new Republican Governor to come to a meeting to become acquainted and discuss his philosophy of clemency.
Please note a crucial distinction: clemency (or pardon) is separate and distinct from parole. Only the Governor can grant clemency or pardon; the Parole Board reviews and grants parole. The Governor is not involved in parole decisions.
It is this October '96 meeting which is now the focus of attention. One of the Board members, Charles Chastain, is now alleging publicly that the Governor used that meeting to pressure the Board to grant DuMond parole.
In fact, just the opposite is true: Mr. Chastain attempted to dissuade Governor Huckabee from his intent to grant clemency to DuMond.
"They are saying that the Governor was trying to persuade them to grant parole," said Reeves, "it was the other way around, they were trying to persuade him not to grant clemency."
At the time Mr. Reeves served as chief counsel to the Governor and attended the October meeting with Governor Huckabee in his official capacity.
Mr. Reeves asserts categorically that parole for DuMond was "never mentioned" during the meeting. ("I told this guy [Waas], that's not why we had that meeting.") The quotes attributed to Reeves in The Huffington Post article, authored by Murray Waas, all relate to a conversation which was about Governor Huckabee's stated intention to grant DuMond clemency.
This is a very simple distinction that Waas fails to make. The context of the discussion that occurred - and Governor Huckabee has not denied that a discussion occurred - was the question of whether or not Governor Huckabee would grant clemency, not whether or not the Board would grant parole. The Board's decision had already been made and their recommendation was already on the Governor's desk.
In the midst of a general discussion about the Governor's general philosophy related to clemency, one of the Board members asked the Governor about the DuMond case and his intention to grant clemency (which was public knowledge due to the notice of intent.)
The Governor responded by stating that he believed the facts warranted his decision to initiate a notice of intent. As has been reported, he added that he believed DuMond had gotten a bad deal from the justice system. (This goes to the stated purpose of the meeting which was for the Governor to communicate to the Board his clemency philosophy.) Note that this does parallel the quotes attributed to Reeves by Waas in the Huffington Post:
"But, according to Reeves, Huckabee actually told the parole board members that the prison sentence meted out to Dumond for his rape conviction was "outlandish" and "way out of bounds for his crime."
Again, the Governor made these comments to explain his position on the clemency request, not to persuade the Board to grant parole. The Board had already decided against parole. "Parole was not an issue; it didn't come up," said Reeves.
In response to the Governor's explanation of why he intended to grant DuMond clemency, Chastain then stated why he was against it. The Governor, according to Reeves replied, "Well, okay, it's a difference of opinion." And the discussion ended.
The Huffington Post article asserts that the Reeves account contradicts the Governor's version when, in fact, everything Mr. Reeves describes corroborates Governor Huckabee's statement on the issue, as quoted by Waas:
"This stands in stark contrast to Huckabee's assertion, repeated at a press conference today that he "did not ask [the board] to do anything." When asked directly about trying to influence the board, Huckabee responded: "No. I did not. Let me categorically say that I did not."
"He never mentioned parole at that meeting," says Mr. Reeves. "The Governor was talking about clemency."
On January 16, 1997 the Board took up a reconsideration of DuMond's parole request and voted to grant parole with the stipulation that DuMond be paroled out of state.
The vote was as follows:
4 members voted yes. LeRoy Brownlee, Chairman; Fred Allen, Jr.; Ermer Poindexter; Railey Steele;
1 voted no. Dr. Charles Chastain.
There were 2 abstentions. Deborah Suttler and August Pieroni.
That same afternoon the Governor denied the clemency request. He sent a letter to DuMond that has been widely reported saying, (excerpted):
"Dear Wayne, I have reviewed your applications for executive clemency, specifically a commutation and/or pardon. ... My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel now that parole is the best way for your reintegration into society. ... Therefore, after careful consideration ... I have denied your applications."
The Governor's approach to the DuMond case has been consistent. As he expressed in the letter, he did believe that DuMond should be released from prison. However, he denied clemency/pardon FOUR TIMES. Even after the Board granted parole with the out-of-state stipulation, Governor Huckabee denied two subsequent clemency requests. DuMond could not find a state which would take him, so he remained in prison for TWO MORE YEARS. It was during this time that the Governor continued to deny him clemency.
If the Governor was actively seeking to release DuMond, he could have easily done so by granting him clemency. He did not do so.
Finally, September 16, 1999 the Board, during a regular progress report on DuMond, dropped the out-of state condition for parole. The Governor took no action to promote this decision and did not know it was coming.
In October of that year, DuMond was released.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
ON DUMOND - Huckabee's Comments
All information has come from http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
Truth Squad: Governor Huckabee's Response to the Wayne Dumond Incident
December 05, 2007
This is the transcript from his answer at the press conference today on the Wayne Dumond Case. Governor Huckabee was asked if he had pressured the parole board to release Dumond.Governor Huckabee: No. I did not. Let me categorically say that I did not. And it's really interesting, if people want to really look into that record. Here's the chronology, and here's the timeline. I'm going to try to do it as briefly as I can, because it's been delved into repeatedly, normally during an election year. In 1992, Bill Clinton was governor; Jim Guy Tucker was Lieutenant Governor. And during Bill Clinton's governorship, while he was campaigning for president, Jim Guy Tucker signed the papers to commute the sentence of Wayne DuMond to parole eligibility. That's what made him parole eligible in 1992. He had been convicted of rape in Forest City Arkansas, during time of awaiting trial, he was hogtied and castrated; his testicles were later placed in a jar on the desk of a sherriff. It was a brutal, amazingly, just, complicated case. There were all kinds of questions about the case. Many stories were written; I am sure you can Google all the way back to the 1980s and get more information than you even want on the case. For reasons Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker would have to answer, not me, the sentence was commuted in 1992. I was not elected to anything at that time; I was a candidate for the United States Senate. I was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1993; in 1996, Wayne DuMond had requested another commutation for time served because the parole board had not granted parole even though he was parole eligible. Let me make it clear, governors in Arkansas cannot parole anybody. The parole process is separated from governor; the governor can commute a sentence to make it parole eligible. The actual parole is handled completely separate from the governor. Jim Guy Tucker had been convicted of Whitewater related felonies, he resigned. When I came into office in July, the file of Wayne DuMond was on my desk and was transferred to me having been sat there for several months prior to my coming of office. That request for commutation to time served awaited me. I originally considered it, indicated even an intention I that might grant it. There was and incredible outcry over that, I ultimately requested to deny it. Primarily for the reason I believed there needed to be some supervision; I was not completely confident that it would be appropriate for him to get out without supervision. He had a unblemished prison record - an exemplary record in terms of getting along as an inmate. He had met all the qualifications for being paroled, including having a job lined up, a sponsor with a church I think in Houston, TX, originally. I chose ultimately not to pardon him. I made a visit to the parole board early in my tenure as a governor at the request of chairman, because you gotta remember, every member of that parole board had been appointed by Jim Guy Tucker or Bill Clinton. Not one of them appointed by me. I'm a new Republican governor, they'd never seen one. I think they had real concern on how to interrelate or how to relate to me. And what kind of attitude I had in general to crime, attitude, parole, etc. So at their invitation, I went to the meeting; someone brought up this case. Frankly, it was simply part of a broader discussion; I did not ask them to do anything. I did indicate it was sitting at my desk; and I was giving thought to it. But this was probably in, I'm thinking maybe September or October when that meeting was held; I can't remember exactly. The parole board, the following year, early 97 approved his parole plan after I had denied the further commutation. Subsequent to that, he…I can't remember exactly the timing, he left there, went to MO, unfortunately was later convicted for the murder of one woman and awaiting trial for the murder of another when he died in prison. It was a horrible situation, horrible, I feel awful about it in every way. I wish that there was some way I could go back and reverse the clock and put him back in prison. But nobody, not me, not Jim Guy Tucker, not Bill Clinton, not that parole board, could ever imagine what might have transpired. For people to say that I was responsible in getting him out makes a few presumptions - number one, it presumes, I had an influence on Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker in 1992. The second presumption, it assumes I had the amazing persuasive power to go into a board of seven people, all of them appointed by Democratic governors before me and persuade them to do something they didn't wish to do. It also assumes that, not only did I have that power, but that only two of them changed story about what happened and they didn't do so until 6 years later when we were in the middle of an election year. And after, and subsequent to the fact that I had not reappointed them to their $75,000 jobs on the parole board. Now if you can follow that line and believe that I am solely responsible, then you'll believe that. But you'll believe a lot of other things as well. I am deeply sorry, and I mean, awfully, just horrified of what happened to (inaudible). And there is not a single person that will ever bring those women back to their families. But that's the story, that's what happened. And yes it will come up in the presidential campaign. It came up in my governor's campaign. There will be people who are victims who will probably be brought forth to make statements but, you know, I can't fix it. I can only tell the truth and let the truth be my judge.
Truth Squad: Governor Huckabee's Response to the Wayne Dumond Incident
December 05, 2007
This is the transcript from his answer at the press conference today on the Wayne Dumond Case. Governor Huckabee was asked if he had pressured the parole board to release Dumond.Governor Huckabee: No. I did not. Let me categorically say that I did not. And it's really interesting, if people want to really look into that record. Here's the chronology, and here's the timeline. I'm going to try to do it as briefly as I can, because it's been delved into repeatedly, normally during an election year. In 1992, Bill Clinton was governor; Jim Guy Tucker was Lieutenant Governor. And during Bill Clinton's governorship, while he was campaigning for president, Jim Guy Tucker signed the papers to commute the sentence of Wayne DuMond to parole eligibility. That's what made him parole eligible in 1992. He had been convicted of rape in Forest City Arkansas, during time of awaiting trial, he was hogtied and castrated; his testicles were later placed in a jar on the desk of a sherriff. It was a brutal, amazingly, just, complicated case. There were all kinds of questions about the case. Many stories were written; I am sure you can Google all the way back to the 1980s and get more information than you even want on the case. For reasons Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker would have to answer, not me, the sentence was commuted in 1992. I was not elected to anything at that time; I was a candidate for the United States Senate. I was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1993; in 1996, Wayne DuMond had requested another commutation for time served because the parole board had not granted parole even though he was parole eligible. Let me make it clear, governors in Arkansas cannot parole anybody. The parole process is separated from governor; the governor can commute a sentence to make it parole eligible. The actual parole is handled completely separate from the governor. Jim Guy Tucker had been convicted of Whitewater related felonies, he resigned. When I came into office in July, the file of Wayne DuMond was on my desk and was transferred to me having been sat there for several months prior to my coming of office. That request for commutation to time served awaited me. I originally considered it, indicated even an intention I that might grant it. There was and incredible outcry over that, I ultimately requested to deny it. Primarily for the reason I believed there needed to be some supervision; I was not completely confident that it would be appropriate for him to get out without supervision. He had a unblemished prison record - an exemplary record in terms of getting along as an inmate. He had met all the qualifications for being paroled, including having a job lined up, a sponsor with a church I think in Houston, TX, originally. I chose ultimately not to pardon him. I made a visit to the parole board early in my tenure as a governor at the request of chairman, because you gotta remember, every member of that parole board had been appointed by Jim Guy Tucker or Bill Clinton. Not one of them appointed by me. I'm a new Republican governor, they'd never seen one. I think they had real concern on how to interrelate or how to relate to me. And what kind of attitude I had in general to crime, attitude, parole, etc. So at their invitation, I went to the meeting; someone brought up this case. Frankly, it was simply part of a broader discussion; I did not ask them to do anything. I did indicate it was sitting at my desk; and I was giving thought to it. But this was probably in, I'm thinking maybe September or October when that meeting was held; I can't remember exactly. The parole board, the following year, early 97 approved his parole plan after I had denied the further commutation. Subsequent to that, he…I can't remember exactly the timing, he left there, went to MO, unfortunately was later convicted for the murder of one woman and awaiting trial for the murder of another when he died in prison. It was a horrible situation, horrible, I feel awful about it in every way. I wish that there was some way I could go back and reverse the clock and put him back in prison. But nobody, not me, not Jim Guy Tucker, not Bill Clinton, not that parole board, could ever imagine what might have transpired. For people to say that I was responsible in getting him out makes a few presumptions - number one, it presumes, I had an influence on Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker in 1992. The second presumption, it assumes I had the amazing persuasive power to go into a board of seven people, all of them appointed by Democratic governors before me and persuade them to do something they didn't wish to do. It also assumes that, not only did I have that power, but that only two of them changed story about what happened and they didn't do so until 6 years later when we were in the middle of an election year. And after, and subsequent to the fact that I had not reappointed them to their $75,000 jobs on the parole board. Now if you can follow that line and believe that I am solely responsible, then you'll believe that. But you'll believe a lot of other things as well. I am deeply sorry, and I mean, awfully, just horrified of what happened to (inaudible). And there is not a single person that will ever bring those women back to their families. But that's the story, that's what happened. And yes it will come up in the presidential campaign. It came up in my governor's campaign. There will be people who are victims who will probably be brought forth to make statements but, you know, I can't fix it. I can only tell the truth and let the truth be my judge.
Sunday, 2 December 2007
Ernie Dumas - Huckabee Response
All Information Below are available on http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
December 02, 2007
Ernie Dumas, an editor for the liberal tabloid The Arkansas Times, attempts to compare the tax increases under Bill Clinton with those of Governor Mike Huckabee. To make the comparison, Dumas simply counts the number of increases rather than examining the impact of these fiscal changes. However, the assessment would have been easier had Dumas simply asked whether Arkansans were better off under Clinton or under Governor Huckabee.
Clearly, if you were an owner of an out-of-state corporation you would have been pleased with the corporate welfare offered by Clinton. Dumas notes that, "If you counted all the tax benefits extended to corporations under the incentives enacted by the legislature under Clinton" and they were part of his programs, especially in 1983, 1985 and 1989; the tax cuts would dwarf those under Huckabee. While this is true, Dumas fails to point out is that these "incentives" nearly bankrupted the state.
As The New York Times noted in 1992, Clinton merely shifted the tax burden from corporation and the wealthy to the poor and middle class:
State data show that business tax preferences, especially sales tax exemptions, cost the state at least $400 million a year -- almost 20 percent of the state's total revenue. As an apparent result of that and some other factors, in the last decade Arkansas has had to rely increasingly on sales taxes to balance its budget.
The state's average tax rate is the 42d lowest in the nation. But Citizens for Tax Justice, a public interest group in Washington, says those taxes hit poor families harder than wealthy families by a ratio of 1.7 to 1. - (April 2, 1992)
In contrast, Governor Huckabee took measures to aid families that Clinton refused make during his tenure. Some of the major accomplishments include:
Established a Property Taxpayers' Bill of Rights
Limited the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit
Eliminated the income tax for families below the poverty line.
Increased the standard deductions.
Eliminated the marriage penalty.
Eliminated bracket creep by indexing the income taxes to inflation, thereby preventing taxpayers from moving into a higher bracket when their paychecks increase due to inflations.
Doubled the child-care tax credit.
Eliminated capital gains tax on the sale of a home.
After his first four years in office President Ronald Reagan asked, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The people of Arkansas could ask themselves a similar question: Where they better off after the decade under Clinton or the 10 and half years under Gov. Huckabee?
Recipients of corporate handouts, especially those who didn.t live in the state, probably preferred Clinton. But the poor and middle class citizens of Arkansas who drive on improved roads, send their kids to better schools, and work in one of the 100,000 new jobs created during Huckabee's tenure know which Governor they'd prefer.
December 02, 2007
Ernie Dumas, an editor for the liberal tabloid The Arkansas Times, attempts to compare the tax increases under Bill Clinton with those of Governor Mike Huckabee. To make the comparison, Dumas simply counts the number of increases rather than examining the impact of these fiscal changes. However, the assessment would have been easier had Dumas simply asked whether Arkansans were better off under Clinton or under Governor Huckabee.
Clearly, if you were an owner of an out-of-state corporation you would have been pleased with the corporate welfare offered by Clinton. Dumas notes that, "If you counted all the tax benefits extended to corporations under the incentives enacted by the legislature under Clinton" and they were part of his programs, especially in 1983, 1985 and 1989; the tax cuts would dwarf those under Huckabee. While this is true, Dumas fails to point out is that these "incentives" nearly bankrupted the state.
As The New York Times noted in 1992, Clinton merely shifted the tax burden from corporation and the wealthy to the poor and middle class:
State data show that business tax preferences, especially sales tax exemptions, cost the state at least $400 million a year -- almost 20 percent of the state's total revenue. As an apparent result of that and some other factors, in the last decade Arkansas has had to rely increasingly on sales taxes to balance its budget.
The state's average tax rate is the 42d lowest in the nation. But Citizens for Tax Justice, a public interest group in Washington, says those taxes hit poor families harder than wealthy families by a ratio of 1.7 to 1. - (April 2, 1992)
In contrast, Governor Huckabee took measures to aid families that Clinton refused make during his tenure. Some of the major accomplishments include:
Established a Property Taxpayers' Bill of Rights
Limited the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit
Eliminated the income tax for families below the poverty line.
Increased the standard deductions.
Eliminated the marriage penalty.
Eliminated bracket creep by indexing the income taxes to inflation, thereby preventing taxpayers from moving into a higher bracket when their paychecks increase due to inflations.
Doubled the child-care tax credit.
Eliminated capital gains tax on the sale of a home.
After his first four years in office President Ronald Reagan asked, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The people of Arkansas could ask themselves a similar question: Where they better off after the decade under Clinton or the 10 and half years under Gov. Huckabee?
Recipients of corporate handouts, especially those who didn.t live in the state, probably preferred Clinton. But the poor and middle class citizens of Arkansas who drive on improved roads, send their kids to better schools, and work in one of the 100,000 new jobs created during Huckabee's tenure know which Governor they'd prefer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
