Donate to OnlyHuckabee.com

Keep the Huckaball rolling!

Part I

Part II

Part III

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.
Obama's friend Bill Ayers stepping on American flag:


Caution: You are about to enter a gun-free zone
by Mike Adams  link to original source

I don’t have to remind my readers that I spend a good bit of my time disagreeing with campus leftists. Nor do I need to remind them that most of these disagreements are with leftist professors. But, until now, I haven’t written about one of the subjects upon which we frequently disagree. That is the subject of whether deterrence theory “works.”

Conservatives and leftists (I have a hard time calling them liberals because of their fascistic tendencies) have a fundamentally different view of human nature. Leftists see humans as innately good. That is why they think rehabilitation works. It is also why they think the United Nations is a good idea. If people are innately good then, surely, they can talk out their problems without resorting to war.

But conservatives have a more tragic view of human nature. We believe that people with innately destructive tendencies must be held in check. That is why we so frequently speak of traditional values. That is why we also speak of the need to have a punitive criminal justice system, which serves as a back-up plan when traditional values fail. The ideal system would mete out punishment that is swift, certain, and severe.

In a nutshell, conservatives believe the Reagan military build-up produced the fall of the Berlin Wall. And we believe that criminals, like communists, are on their best behavior when they are afraid.

Ever since I began my transformation from leftist atheist to conservative Christian I’ve been arguing with professors inclined to dismiss deterrence theory. Those professors usually fall into one of two groups. First, there are those who name a specific “get tough” program that they believe “hasn’t worked.” Second, there are those who just blandly assert that deterrence theory, in general, “doesn’t work.”

Today, I plan to respond to both of these groups. Let me start with the second group.

Every time I hear a professor say that deterrence theory “doesn’t work” I log on to his university web page to peruse his syllabi. And in each instance I find evidence that he really does believe in the efficacy of deterrence theory. That evidence comes in many forms such the assertion that “plagiarism will be punished under the academic honor code” or “those who miss more than two classes will have three points deducted from his or her final average.”

Obviously, these professors seek to deter cheating and skipping class through the medium of punishment, not negotiation. That means the professors are hypocrites – not because they fail to live up to the things they say but because they do not even believe them in the first place.

It is better to ignore these hypocrites altogether. But those in the aforementioned first group should be taken more seriously. Since they tend to rely on specific empirical data rather than broad theoretical assertions, I now invite them to participate in a little experiment meant to assess whether specific measures based on deterrence theory actually “work.”

I want all of those leftist professors who say that having a gun in one’s home does not deter burglary to do the following:

1. Post a sign on your front door saying “Caution: You Are About to Enter a Gun Free Zone.”

2. Send a post card to DrAdams.org, P.O. Box 319, Wrightsville Beach, NC, 28480. Just note that you have posted your sign and leave a return address so I can mail you a crime victimization survey this time next year.

Next, I want all of those gun owners who say that having a gun in one’s home does, in fact, deter burglary to do the following:

1. Post a sign on your front door saying “Caution: You Are About to Enter an Armed Household.”

2. Send a post card to DrAdams.org, P.O. Box 319, Wrightsville Beach, NC, 28480. Just note that you have posted your sign and leave a return address so I can mail you a crime victimization survey this time next year.

There are also professors who continue to assert that actually carrying a weapon with a valid permit does not deter violent crime. For those, it will not be necessary to conduct a crime victimization study. There are already 15 refereed studies indicating that concealed carry permits reduce violent crime. While some published studies are inconclusive, none draw the conclusion that the permits increase violence.

Nonetheless, some leftist professors continue to use scare tactics by ignoring the evidence and claiming that concealed carry permits do increase violence. Such assertions are immoral because they are dishonest.

Such assertions are also careless because even those without guns are safer living in areas that allow citizens to carry concealed. This is because violent criminals do not know who has a gun and who does not. But, today, I plan to change all that by asking these leftists professors to write to DrAdams.org to re-assert their opposition to concealed carry laws.

After they send a post card to the address supplied above, I’ll send them a free t-shirt saying “Caution: I’m an Un-Armed Citizen.” If they get into trouble wearing it, they can always negotiate their way out of the situation.


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