Donate to OnlyHuckabee.com

Keep the Huckaball rolling!

Part I

Part II

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.
Environmentalists' wild predictions
by Walter Williams   link to original source

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.



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.

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