The senseless and savage slaying of 4 police officers in Lakewood, Washington has raised many questions as to why the alleged murderer was even on the streets. My name has figured prominently in many of the stories because I commuted his 108 year sentence to a term of 47 years back in 2000. I take full responsibility for my decision then. Unfortunately, many of my fellow conservatives don’t seem to want to take responsibility for the facts surrounding the case.

The Maurice Clemmons presented in a commutation request in the year 2000 was much different than the one who is being sought for the killings of the police officers.

The case before me was of a 16 year old who received a disproportionate sentence of 108 years for burglary and robbery charges. He had already served 11 years in Arkansas prison by that time, which is more time actually served than most similar cases would have netted in sentencing alone. Under Arkansas law, governors don’t parole anyone. The Post Prison Transfer Board does. That board can recommend clemency, and in this case recommended by a 5-0 vote that his sentence be reduced. This was one of 1000-1200 cases I reviewed each of the 10 and a half years as governor. Ninety-two percent of the time, any request for clemency was denied. Most of the ones granted were for clearing a person’s record for a minor offense from 20 years previous. The trial judge in the case supported the commutation. During the legally required 30 day public comment period before action on the case was complete, there were no objections registered by my office by any authorities, despite claims of the local prosecutor that he “was afraid something like this would happen.” Interestingly, if he was so afraid, then he has failed to explain why in 2004 when Clemmons was back in prison for a parole violation, his office failed to pursue charges and in fact dropped them, allowing Clemmons to go free, move to Washington, and for reasons beyond me, continue to avoid extradition back to Arkansas or be kept by Washington authorities as he displayed signs of psychotic behavior. I am responsible for the commutation in 2000. I would not have commuted his sentence in 2004 after the re-arrest or in any of the years following. I can explain my decision in 2000. I cannot explain the decision of the very vocal prosecutor in Little Rock who seems to avoid answering the questions as to why he didn’t keep Clemmons in prison in 2004 or get him brought back to Arkansas for his repeated parole violations.

There are some glaring facts that some conservative talkers seem to miss:

1. He was never pardoned. Amazingly, that word has been used to describe my actions 9 years ago. He was never even considered for a pardon.

2. The commutation didn’t release him. It made him parole eligible. He had to meet the conditions of parole for the parole board, who in fact paroled him. He had been in prison for 11 years at the time of his release.

3. Despite news reports, there are no records that the prosecutor, law enforcement, the Attorney General, or victims objected to the commutation. The only responses my office had record of during the public comment period were support letters from the trial judge, and members of the community.

4. He was back in prison by 2004 and would have remained there until 2015 due to his parole violations had the prosecutor chosen to properly file the paperwork.

5. The Clemmons of 2000 did not exhibit traits of psychosis and the kind of behavior that he would later express during several arrests in Washington state during the past year.

6. Religion had nothing to do with the commutation. It’s been erroneously expressed that my own personal faith or the claims of faith of the inmate factored into my decision. That is simply not true and nothing in the record even suggests it. The reasons were straightforward -- a unanimous recommendation from the board, support from a trial judge and no objections from officials in a case that involved a 16 year old sentenced to a term that was exponentially longer than similar cases and certainly longer than had he been white, upper middle class, and represented by effective counsel who would have clearly objected to the sentencing. (His race, economic status, or education level are not excuses for his behavior because many people of color who are uneducated and living in abject poverty are civil, trustworthy, and honest to a fault and many well-educated, wealthy, white people are dirtbags -- think Bernie Madoff). But sadly, Arkansas has had numerous instances of disproportionate sentencing in which a probation and fine would be meted out to white upper class kids whose parents were able to obtain the services of excellent defense attorneys, while young black males committing the same crimes and represented by public defenders would end up with inexplicably long prison terms. Blacks comprise 15% of the state’s population, but 50% of the inmate population, some of which is due to the fact that their sentences are often longer and they are less likely to be paroled.

The two professions I value most in our society are soldiers and police officers, with fireman and schoolteachers right behind. Soldiers and police officers are the line between us and anarchy. The death of the four officers in Lakewood should never have happened. I regret that I ever saw the name of Maurice Clemmons and that I commuted his sentence and made him eligible for parole. That is my responsibility and it was based on the evidence before me in 2000. If presented the same facts today, I would have acted in the same manner. But once he violated that parole and his second chance in 2004, he should not have received the treatment he appeared to have received from the Arkansas prosecutor or the officials in Washington, who failed to send him back to prison and who let him go free on bail even after repeated violent outbursts and a rape charge from this past year. I can take responsibility for my actions, but not for the actions of others nor the misinformed words of commentators.

By Mike Huckabee

The Heritage Foundation published an excellent analysis of the real cost of the Play or Pay Mandates in the Health Care Reform Bills.  Written by D. Mark Wilson, it discusses in detail the three main health care reform bills that Congress is now debating.

Mr. Wilson makes an analysis that should be required reading for every person in America. I believe that including a "Play or Pay" Mandate in any health care reform bill would be catastrophic for America.  Why?  Because I firmly believe that requiring employers to either provide some level of health insurance or surrender a huge percentage of payroll to the government will result in job losses and lower wages.  Many businesses that would be subject to play or pay penalties simply can't afford them.  They would be forced to make one of two decisions - lay off some of their employees or lower wages to cover the costs.

There is a lot of confusion over what exactly "Play or Pay" means.  It would require companies to pay the government a set amount (Senate Bill) or a percentage of their gross payroll (House Bill) if they don't offer health coverage.  This, of course, is a simplification of these very complicated bills, since each bill differs in the penalties and in which employers would be subject to its provisions. 

D. Mark Wilson points out that "the three main health care reform bills that Congress is currently debating each include a play or pay employer mandate."  Actually, most people believe that there are two main bills under discussion, H.R. 3200, which has been voted out of the House Committee, and the Senate Bill, which was passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.  There will probably be a third bill, which will come out of the Senate Finance Committee, but as of now, there has been no vote on that bill by the Committee.

Mr. Wilson makes the point that "the play-or-pay mandates in these bills, which require employers to offer health insurance to their workers or pay a tax to the federal government, will affect between 95 million and 105 million workers, and 509,000 to 1.4 million employers, including up to 1 million small businesses."  That is a staggering analysis in and of itself, but then Mr. Wilson goes on to say that "the mandates will put 5.2 million low-wage workers at risk of unemployment or reduced working hours."

Our economy simply can't absorb that kind of blow.  An already staggering economy would suffer a blow that would take years to recover from, if we could recover at all.  Mr. Wilson notes that "the mandates will cost businesses at least $49 billion per year." 

The American people have made it clear that they do not want the government to make any decisions involving their health care.  Play or Pay is yet another example of why they feel that way.  Irresponsible legislation, which the health care bills presently on the table clearly are, need to be discarded.  Let's fix what needs to be fixed, help the neediest Americans and leave the 80% of Americans satisfied with their health care alone.

Cross posted at Huck PAC.

Please follow me on twitter@govmikehuckabee

To become a fan of Mike Huckabee on Facebook please click here.

To learn more about Huck PAC please click here.
  

By Mike Huckabee

Since my 10 ½ year term as Governor or Arkansas ended in January 2007, I have not held any public office or represented our government in any capacity. This past week I’ve had the pleasure of visiting Israel for the eleventh time since 1973, and am already planning my next visit this coming January. As one of the more than half a million American tourists who visit Israel each year, I went purely as a private citizen, representing no government or business interests.

Yet for some reason I can’t understand, my tourist jaunt is being compared to Nancy Pelosi’s diplomatic mission to Syria in April of 2007. The two trips couldn’t be more different.

First, there is our difference in status. Speaker Pelosi visited as a sitting government official, and not just any old member of Congress, but as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker is one of the highest-ranking leaders of our country and is second in line to assume the presidency. So there is a world of difference between my traveling as a private citizen and Nancy Pelosi’s traveling in her official capacity as Speaker.

Second, there is the stark contrast between the countries visited. Syria is one of our most implacable enemies and is on the State Department’s list as a state sponsor of terror. The State Department made it clear to Speaker Pelosi before her trip that they did not want her to go. Israeli officials were described as “shocked” by her visit to Syria. By contrast, Israel is one of our closest allies and friends. No one in the Obama Administration asked me not to go. Frankly, I don’t think anybody cared that I was going, and I see no reason why they should.

Third, there is the difference in the purpose of the trips. Speaker Pelosi went specifically to hold formal talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad. I did not meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I did not negotiate with anybody about anything –I didn’t even negotiate over the price of a few souvenirs because I did not shop.

As a private citizen, I have commented on what I have seen based on my past experiences. When I visited Israel in the 1970’s and 1980’s I had no problem visiting Nablus. But this time, I couldn’t go because I was with Israelis, and they cannot enter Nablus or Bethlehem or Ramallah. I commented on this because I thought it was remarkable that there are places Israelis can’t go in their own country.

Just as I believe that Israelis should be able to travel to all parts of their country, I believe they should be able to live wherever they want in that country, and that the U. S. government should not tell an Israeli family that they can’t add a nursery to their house when they welcome a new baby, or tell an Israeli village that they can’t add a classroom to their schoolhouse. As a private citizen, I disagree, and I have a right to disagree, with President Obama’s demand for a freeze on Israel’s building new settlements, and with his further demand for a freeze on expansion of existing settlements, despite the natural growth that a community experiences. His call for such a complete freeze contradicts the policy not just of President Bush, but of President Clinton, indeed of all our presidents since Israel’s victory in the 1967 war.

President Obama’s unprecedented stance toward Israel doesn’t just contravene the past forty years of American policy, it contravenes his own statements as a presidential candidate.

I visited a planned housing development in East Jerusalem that President Obama is insisting not be built because he seems to anticipate that Jerusalem will be divided and this area will go to the Palestinians. Yet in June 2008, candidate Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”) that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

In 2007, then-Senator Obama assured AIPAC that “we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States. We must be partners….” And in 2008, he promised AIPAC that “We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran.” But when President Obama announced his new settlement policy, he coupled it with an implied threat that unless the Israelis capitulated, he might retaliate by not doing as much as he could to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He sounded ominously like Tony Soprano.

In 2008 President Obama also told AIPAC that he was “a true friend of Israel.” He emphasized his “strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.” He said that “as president, I will work with you to ensure that this bond is strengthened. … I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.” When he said that Israel “can advance the cause of peace” by not “building new settlements” if that was “consistent with its security,” he said nothing about expanding existing settlements, and, more importantly, he spoke as if settlement policy was entirely up to the Israeli government, not the U. S. government.

As a candidate President Obama never told the American people that if he was elected, he would order a draconian freeze on all settlement activity with no exceptions. He never told the American people that he would move U. S. policy backward by reneging on the understanding by Presidents Clinton and Bush that Israel would never give up all settlements, but would keep some close to the 1949 armistice line by swapping land.

But after a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in May, President Obama announced that, “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.” With whom are the Israelis supposed to move forward? With the Hamas terrorists of the Gaza Strip? With Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas who barely controls the sidewalk in front of his office in the West Bank? Yet President Obama took the ball out of the Palestinians’ court and said that it wasn’t their wanton destruction of life and property that was holding back the peace process, no, it was Israeli construction. Nothing about the Palestinians’ recognizing Israel’s basic right to exist or renouncing terror to move the process forward, no, it was all the fault of those pesky settlements.

In case the Arab world didn’t get that message of “blame the victim” loud and clear, President Obama reiterated it in his major address in Cairo on June 4: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Interesting use of the word “legitimacy” to a group of people who don’t accept the legitimacy of Israel herself. A little wink and nod there.

Not only isn’t President Obama helping the peace process, he is hurting it by telling the Palestinians that there is no reason for them to do anything but wait for Israel to make unilateral concessions under American pressure. Such pressure must be contrasted with the partnership we’ve always had with Israel, the one he pledged to continue when he was looking for American votes, not Arab approval.

cross posted on Huck PAC.
follow me on twitter @govmikehuckabee
Join me on Facebook.

To President Barack Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Members of Congress:

The Constitution starts with "WE THE PEOPLE" and it's time you start remembering that.

American families on a daily basis make hard choices in order to live within their means.

Why can't Congress and our federal government do the same?

I urge you to work towards balancing the budget.

I urge you to cut our taxes so families can save more and to cut the wasteful spending that is mortgaging the future of generations of Americans and severely limiting their ability to prosper.

Instead of your own re-election, put families in your district and state first.

I am signing this simple: "BALANCE, CUT, SAVE" petition because I believe it is these three things that you should remember when making decisions about new spending, taxes and health care in the weeks ahead.

If you stick to these guiding lights, you can't go wrong.

Mr. President and members of Congress, I've kept it simple for you:

BALANCE, CUT, SAVE.

That's what should guide you in your decisions in the week's ahead. My family can't afford the decisions you are making on my behalf so I am signing this petition to remind you of what is important:

My Family, My Country And My Freedom.

Thank you and God Bless America!

Sign the Petition at Huck PAC.

Please follow me on twitter@govmikehuckabee

To become a fan of Mike Huckabee on Facebook click here.

Go to www.huckpac.com to learn more.
.

I have listened carefully to the Health Care debate currently raging all across this country.  There are two things that I have realized, after listening to the only people who really count – the American citizens – 1.  Most Americans want more affordable health care, with a wide range of choices and options; 2.  The politicians in Washington continue to ignore the wishes of the people.

Congress and the President continue to focus on a mandated plan, one that will require every American to have health care and will penalize those who don’t, with some politicians advocating fines of up to $1,000 per person, for those who don’t have coverage.  In typical Washington “speak” no one really wants to discuss the cost of such a system, or the reduced care that will surely result.  I don’t believe for a minute that the American people will accept a system like the Canadian system or the system in Great Britain.  A wait of six months for urgently needed tests and surgery is simply unacceptable.  In Canada, many Canadians wait even longer, and end up opting to go to the States for the surgeries they need. 

I believe strongly in the genius of the American people.  They know what kind of care they want and how they expect to pay for it.  They know that they do not want a single payer government operated system.  Why in the world would we trust politicians and bureaucrats in Washington to manage our health care system?  They haven’t been able to handle any of the major problems facing our country.

The American people know that one of the most basic things we need to do as a nation is to teach preventative health care measures in schools and to parents and families.  The key to improving health in America is to create an atmosphere of healthy behavior. Teaching young children how to take care of their bodies and teaching young parents and families the importance of healthy diet and exercise is a starting point.  We need to get our kids out of the habits of eating unhealthy foods and sitting for hours in front of the television or computer. Changing the collective attitude of the American people is vital.  We need to give people information that changes the way they think about an issue. 

Your health is like a dashboard.  If the only thing you ever look at is your speedometer, and you don’t bother to look at the oil gauge and the water gauge, you can get into serious trouble.  You may think, “hey, I’m going the speed limit” but that’s not the point.  That’s how fast your car is going, not how well it’s running.  Health is the same way – you can’t just focus on weight – you need to look at your cholesterol levels, hemoglobin AIC, blood sugar and blood pressure as well.

No, preventative health care measures won’t reduce the cost of health care, at least for a generation, but it is a necessary step.  We must also take steps to reduce the costs of employer provided health care.  Our businesses can’t compete in a global market when they face demands from employees for more and more coverage without any regard for the costs.  That is simply human nature – when a person isn’t paying for something, they want the very best they can get.  I believe that we must transition from an employer based system to a consumer based system. 

Right now, health care in America is reactive and is geared towards intervening in catastrophic situations.  We should be focusing on preventing those situations from occurring.  The whole system is upside down.  It’s like our government is focused on putting Humpty Dumpty back together again instead of keeping him from falling off the wall.  Our healthcare system is based on a broken egg concept.

Tax credits, reform of medical liability, adopting electronic record keeping, expanding health savings accounts, making health insurance tax deductible, and making health insurance more portable from one job to another, and from state to state all will help lower costs and make health insurance more affordable.  We don’t need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care.  We do need more individual control of health care options. 

Also posted at Huck PAC.

Please follow me on twitter@govmikehuckabee

To become a fan of Mike Huckabee on Facebook click here.

Go to www.huckpac.com to learn more.