Donate to OnlyHuckabee.com

Remember to vote Huckabee in the Tuesday primaries!

Keep the Huckaball rolling!

New Mike Huckabee videos

---

---

---

---

Brown fundraiser features Huckabee
link to original source

from left to right: Brown, Huckabee, Daines

Citing tough economic times ahead, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told a Billings audience Wednesday that the state will need a governor like the Republican candidate Roy Brown to navigate a tightening budget.

"You need someone who can steer the canoe in low water," Huckabee said. "It's easy to do when the water's high."

Brown, a six-term state legislator, is challenging incumbent Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, for the job. On Wednesday, Brown held a fundraising breakfast in Billings and a lunch in Bozeman, both showcasing his ties to Huckabee.

Huckabee's presidential campaign in Montana was managed by Brown's running mate, Steve Daines, of Bozeman, who on Wednesday said that the former Arkansas governor offered to stump for the duo shortly after Daines teamed with Brown in February.

"Last February, when he was still in the presidential race he called and offered to help," Daines said. "And he didn't have to. He didn't owe me anything."

Huckabee's talk at the $100-a-plate breakfast at the Crowne Plaza centered on raising money for Brown, who is trailing Schweitzer in funds raised. On March 5, the most recent reporting date available for campaign funds, Brown had raised $226,512 to Schweitzer's $1.2 million.

"I'd rather write a check to a candidate and help him win than write a check to the government because he didn't," Huckabee said.

Brown said the state needs to curb spending and deliver permanent tax relief to Montanans. He called the $400 tax rebate advocated by Schweitzer in the 2007 Legislature an election year gimmick and advocated for something more permanent.

In response, Schweitzer campaign spokesman Harper Lawson countered that Brown was sharing the stage with Huckabee, a known tax rebater from Arkansas. As governor in 2006, Huckabee endorsed a $332 rebate for residents of his state.

"Leave it to a wealthy oil executive like Roy Brown to downplay the value of a $400 property tax rebate," Lawson said. "Brown's attack on last year's historic tax rebate is definitely out of step with both his running mate and with Gov. Huckabee. Both Huckabee and Daines have previously promoted tax rebates as a form of tax relief."

Last year, Daines launched an 11th-hour advertising campaign and Web site urging Montanans to ask their legislators to give each taxpayer $1,000 back from the state's projected $1 billion surplus in the general fund. The effort didn't gain traction.

Regarding the presidential race, from which he withdrew March 4, Huckabee characterized Democrats as imploding, with Barack Obama struggling to distance himself from the radical remarks of his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Hillary Clinton recovering from her fib about how as first lady, she endured sniper fire in war-torn Bosnia.

Huckabee returned to Wright's comments several times, at one point calling Wright almost treasonous for suggesting that the U.S. government created AIDS to kill people of color.

In a press conference after the breakfast, Huckabee said Wright needs Obama to fail in order to prove the reverend's theories of racial oppression.

"Jeremiah Wright needs for Obama to lose so he can justify his anger, his hostile bitterness against the United States of America," Huckabee said. "If it's not true that a man, because of his color, is held back and can't be president, then so much of what Jeremiah Wright has said is invalid."

Huckabee assured his audience of 110 that when the dust settled in the Democratic race, the real election success story of the year would be Republican candidate John McCain's.

"The biggest misconception of the election is that it's going to be a Democrat year," he said. "I think it's going to be a Republican year."

Asked about his chances of becoming McCain's running mate, Huckabee said it was a little early for the captain of the football team to ask him to the prom.

Huckabee: Evangelicals up for grabs
link to original story

pictured left: Huckabee in Montana

It's going to take more than pledges against gay marriage and abortion to woo evangelical voters this election year, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Wednesday.

"The issues that drive evangelicals are the commitment to protect human life and sanctity of marriage, but it's no longer just those two issues," Huckabee told The Billings Gazette. "Younger evangelical voters are also concerned about poverty and the environment. I think the candidate that fails to address the broader agenda is going to fail to unify evangelicals."

In close presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, evangelical voters were the difference for Republican George W. Bush. White evangelical voters accounted for roughly a third of Bush votes. As a voting bloc, evangelicals were nearly monolithic, with 78 percent voting for President Bush.

This election season, analysts say evangelicals aren't nearly as likely to coalesce, partly because the GOP nominee-in-waiting, John McCain, lacks Bush's ties to the evangelical movement. McCain, who attends a Baptist church, talks publicly about his faith much less than Bush and has lashed out evangelical leaders, calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" during his 2000 presidential bid. Falwell died in May 2007.

Another factor changing the direction of the evangelical movement is young Christians, who aren't as hard-wired to the abortion fight or opposition to gay marriage.

Huckabee's campaign message of Christian environmental stewardship and caring for one's God-given body resonated well with young evangelicals. Evangelical voters today recognize the need for social programs that keep families together, keep children in school and keep adults of out of prison and out of rehab.

A campaign platform that cuts taxes to the extent of undermining the country's social fabric is not going to win evangelicals, Huckabee said. Conversely, evangelical voters are less likely to turn to the government for a cash solution.

"If you have strong families, you have strong communities," Huckabee said. "Many studies show that a child who comes out of a broken family situation has a 700 percent greater likelihood of being in poverty. A mother who has a child after 20 and stays married has a 91 percent chance that her child will not be in poverty."

America has stereotyped evangelicals as being solidly Republican, said Christopher Muste, a political science professor at the University of Montana, but there is sizable group of evangelical moderates who could be in play this election year. Without a strong evangelical candidate in either party, the battle for the evangelical moderates could be a difference-maker, he said.

Huckabee: Rev. Wright needs Obama to lose
link to original source

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Former Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said Wednesday that Barack Obama's bid for the White House is not being derailed because he is black but because his former pastor does not want him to prove the country's race relations have progressed.

Obama, a Democrat, has struggled in recent weeks to distance himself from incendiary comments made by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"His campaign is not being derailed by his race, it's being derailed by a person who doesn't want him to prove that we have made great advances in this country," Huckabee told reporters following a fundraiser for Montana gubernatorial candidate Roy Brown.

Wright has claimed AIDS was created by the government to kill "people of color" and that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were spurred by the United State's "terrorism" against minorities at home and abroad.

"Jeremiah Wright needs for Obama to lose so he can justify his anger, his hostile bitterness against the United States of America," Huckabee said.

On Tuesday, Obama, an Illinois senator, said he was outraged by Wright's comments and denounced the remarks as "giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

Sign the "Pass the FairTax" Petition

If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
1. A progressive national retail sales tax.
2. A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
3. Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
4. Repeal of the 16th Amendment

Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.

If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well.

Fill out the form below.  Be sure to put "Huck" in the security code box so we know you are a real person and not a robot from the future.  The voter roll is updated every 24 hours.

Your last name

Your first name

Your email address

Security code

The OnlyHuckabee.com widget below is now available.  Copy the code below the image to embed on your website.  Thanks to Dale for creating this artwork.

Polar Bear Politics
by Robert Bluey  link to original source

Talk about bad timing. Gas prices are spiking and U.S. energy policy is contributing to skyrocketing food costs, yet environmentalists apparently want to make it even more expensive to live in America. And they’re trying to use the polar bear to do it.

A federal judge in California ruled last week that the Bush administration must decide by May 15 whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act because of global warming. The upcoming deadline is fueling fears that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne could cave to left-wing environmentalists.

Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would be a devastating blow for U.S. energy exploration and a boon to global-warming alarmists.

The classification would open the door for environmentalists to challenge any new forms of energy production -- including oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or new power plants and factories that emit fossil fuels. It also would jeopardize a highly promising arrangement in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, which contains an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Now is not the time to cut back on domestic oil production. With gas prices soaring to nearly $4 per gallon in some parts of the country, there’s hardly been a better time to embark on energy exploration in the United States to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

“Alaska is America’s last best frontier for domestic oil and natural gas,” Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation said in arguing against the polar bear’s listing. “Closing off these potential resources would add to energy prices for decades to come and increase reliance on imports.”

Worse still is that classifying the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act would put America’s energy policy in the hands of activist judges. Environmentalists who want to halt construction of a power plant in Minnesota, for instance, could simply run to court complaining how it would harm the polar bear.

Liberal environmentalists who are lobbying for the polar bear’s listing insist that it’s necessary. “We hope that this decision marks the end of the Bush administration’s delays and denial so that immediate action may be taken to protect polar bears from extinction,” said Melanie Duchin of Greenpeace. Added Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity: “The polar bear should receive the protections it deserves under the Endangered Species Act, which is the first step toward saving the polar bear and the entire Arctic ecosystem from global warming.”

But environmentalists conveniently ignore the facts about the bears’ growing populations in Alaska, Canada, Russia and other countries. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears live around the world today, up significantly from the 8,000 to 10,000 in the 1960s. The alarmist views about global warming clearly don’t jive with the facts.

Our neighbors to the north in Canada also recognize the polar bear isn’t threatened or endangered. In fact, Canada’s Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife, an independent group of scientists, said last month the bears deserve merely “special concern” status, the weakest classification in Canada.

“Based on the best available information at hand, there was insufficient reason to think that the polar bear was at imminent risk of extinction,” wrote committee chairman Jeffrey Hutchings.

Some Canadians wouldn’t even go as far as the scientists. The Inuit Indians depend on the polar bear for their livelihood. An endangerment listing would be devastating for the tribe. “We don’t believe the scientists’ information any more. [Hunters] will ignore new quotas,” said Jayko Alooloo of the Hunters and Trappers Organization in Pond Inlet to The Canadian Press.

Rarely does the United States follow Canada’s lead, but this is certainly a case to do just that. As pressure mounts on Secretary Kempthorne to act, he needs to weigh the devastating consequences that listing the bear could have on the American people. The polar bear’s growing population, coupled with the likely litigation that would result from its listing, are sound reasons to leave it off the endangered species list.


Tall Tales about Tuskegeee
by Jonah Goldberg   link to original source

“Based on this Tuskegee experiment ... I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”

So said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright when asked if he stood by his claim that “the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”

The infamous Tuskegee experiment is the Medusa’s head of black left-wing paranoia. Whenever someone laments the fact that anywhere from 10 percent to 33 percent of African-Americans believe the U.S. government invented AIDS to kill blacks, someone will say, “That’s not so crazy when you consider what happened at Tuskegee.”

But it is crazy. And it’s dishonest.

Wright says the U.S. government “purposely infected African-American men with syphilis.” This is a lie, and no knowledgeable historian says otherwise. And yet, this untruth pops up routinely. In March, CNN commentator Roland Martin defended Wright, saying, “That actually did, indeed, happen.” On Fox News, the allegation has gone unchallenged on “Hannity & Colmes” and “The O’Reilly Factor.” Obery Hendricks, a prominent author and visiting scholar at Princeton University, told O’Reilly “I do know that the government injected syphilis into black men at the Tuskegee Institute. Now we know that the government is capable of doing those things.”

To which O’Reilly responded: “All right. All governments have done bad things in every country.”

True enough. And what the U.S. did at Tuskegee was indeed bad, very bad. But it didn’t do what these people say it did.

So what did happen? In 1932, public health researchers set out to study syphilis, particularly among African-Americans, who had higher infection rates than whites. They recruited 399 black men who already had syphilis. The doctors infected no one. In fact, the patients were selected in the first place because they were tertiary-stage syphilitics who were no longer contagious.

The researchers studied the progress of the disease, without treating it, for 40 years.

Prior to the availability of penicillin in the 1940s and 1950s, the researchers couldn’t have treated the men even if they wanted to. Even after standardized penicillin treatments were available, it wasn’t clear that the patients could have been helped. Some of the doctors believed that treating the decades-long infections would kill the men.

Among scholars who’ve studied Tuskegee, there’s a lot of debate about how much — if any — racism was involved in the experiment. But no one disputes that Tuskegee had nothing whatsoever to do with genocide or even a desire to spread the disease among the black population.

What was bad about the Tuskegee experiment was a callous disregard for the humanity and integrity of the patients. They were told they were getting “treatments” when they were merely being studied. They were lied to, treated as objects rather than citizens. This is even more offensive today, now that we have modern legal and ethical rules about informed consent — rules that did not exist when the study was launched. But it was still wrong.

But the idea that the Tuskegee experiment somehow validates the deranged, paranoid view that the U.S. government created AIDS to murder African-Americans — in one of the most hideously painful, drawn-out and expensive manners imaginable — is a riot of ridiculousness and a maelstrom of mendacity. And yet, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard guilt-ridden white liberals say exactly that. “Considering what we did at Tuskegee,” they opine, “who can blame them for being distrustful of government?”

Well, as a conservative, I have no problem with distrusting government, nor can I fault the descendants of slaves or the victims of Jim Crow for distrusting government more than most.

But why blacks remain the most reliable voters for the party of ever-expanding government power is something of a mystery. Indeed, it’s worth noting that the Tuskegee study, launched under the New Deal, was symptomatic of arrogant liberal government. The study “emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and well-being of the African-American population,” writes University of Chicago professor Richard Schweder. He adds: “The study was done with the full knowledge, endorsement and participation of African-American medical professionals, hospitals and research institutes.”

Liberals like to invoke Tuskegee as if it’s solely an indictment of what other people did, proof that we need more progressive government. But Tuskegee was in fact the poisoned fruit of progressive government.

A sick irony is that Jeremiah Wright’s lies, and liberal apologies for them, make it more difficult for government to do the job these people want it to do, starting with helping people with AIDS. But that’s only one of many reasons they should be ashamed.

What is the most important issue in the 2008 election?
	Health care
	War in Iraq
	Economy
	Abortion
	Gay Marriage
	Tax reform
	Immigration
	National security
	2nd Amendment
	Judges
	Environment
	States rights
pollcode.com free polls

Part I


Part II


Part III

Part 1


Part II