Donate to OnlyHuckabee.com

Keep the Huckaball rolling!

Become a FairTax 1040 member now!
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 become a FairTax 1040 member now.

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.
Must-reads for conservatives:

• Star Parker: Drive energy policy by markets, not politics
  
• Dr. Arthur Robinson: The Science of the UN
  
• Pat Buchanan: Return of the censors
  
• Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court and terrorists
  
• Flags, Fathers, and the father of our country
  
• Charles Krauthammer: Environmentalists pick up where communists left off
• George Will: When "market-based" is a facade
• Michell Malkin: Planned Parenthood's obscene profits
  
• Mike Adams: Our states' right to kill the rapist
• Ed Koch: McCain wrong to spurn Hagee
  

Drive energy policy by markets, not politics
by Star Parker   link to original source

Energy is too important to be left to businessmen and markets, right? We need people who we really can trust to get things under control.

Like politicians.

I'm looking at Carpe Diem, the blog of Dr Mark J. Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan. He compares prices of gasoline from 1919 to today against price changes of a first class postage stamp.

At four dollars a gallon, today's gasoline price is sixteen times higher than its price in 1919, 25.5 cents. Over the same period, first class postage went from 2 cents to 42 cents, a 21-fold increase.

And postage prices never went down. Only up.

From 1970 to 1980 there was about a 10-fold increase in oil prices. However, by the mid-1980's prices had dropped by two-thirds and remained relatively unchanged for the next 15 years. Now prices are up by six-fold since 2001.

History, particularly near-term history, is not difficult to access. Search newspaper and magazine articles of the late '70s. The headlines were about the "energy crisis." The world was supposedly running out of oil. We were at the alleged beck and call of Arab oil producers who stood at any moment to use the "oil weapon" against us.

Oil companies were being attacked, as they are now, for the amount of money they were making. When prices sharply dropped in the mid-1980s, these same firms had to cut back, lay off folks, and oil towns like Houston went into depression.

Politicians who want to punish firms with a "windfall profits" tax when prices go up don't propose "loss subsidies" when prices go down.

Our real crises occur when we believe those who challenge what makes this country work -- people, markets, and freedom.

Back to Perry's blog. He shows that with the 10-fold increase in oil prices in the '70s, our energy consumption patterns changed dramatically. Today we consume half the energy to produce $1 of output than we did in 1970. We're now twice as energy efficient as we were.

Yes, markets work when we let them.

Think the guys who drill in 10,000 feet of water offshore looking for oil and gas earn too much?

According to a BusinessWeek survey, median compensation for the CEOs of the 12 largest oil firms in 2007 was $15.4 million. The CEO of the largest, ExxonMobil, earned $21.7 million. Top earner was the CEO of Occidental Petroleum at $33.6 million.

All chump change when we look at the Celebrity 100 list published by Forbes Magazine.

Over the last year, for example, Oprah Winfrey earned $275 million, rapper 50 Cent $150 million, Steven Spielberg $130 million, and Beyonce Knowles $80 million.

With oil prices more than doubling in the last year, we are going to get a market response both with supplies and with how much we consume if we keep politicians at bay.

The "energy independence" goal is pure political baloney. As renowned energy economist and MIT professor emeritus Morris Adelman writes, "It does not matter how much oil is produced domestically and how much is imported." It's a global market and new supplies from any source will depress prices.

Although we import two-thirds of our oil, it comes from well over twenty countries. And despite conventional wisdom, our two largest suppliers are Canada and Mexico.

Appreciate that environmentalism belongs to the Hollywood elite who make their millions and then contribute to Democrats who tell us we shouldn't invest in carbon-based fuels.

Climate change is politics, not science. As environmental scientist S. Fred Singer recently wrote in the New York Sun, 30 percent of climate scientists surveyed were "skeptical" of claims about global warming caused by human activity. "More than 31,000 scientists" have signed a petition questioning the UN's science on all this and opposing the recent "cap-and-trade" legislation in Congress.

Tens of millions of working folks need cheap fuel for their homes, their cars and their trucks.

Yes, drill offshore, drill in Alaska, mine oil shale, and build nuclear plants. Leave all options open.

But let free markets and businesspeople drive these decisions. Not politicians.

A decision that cannot be allowed to stand
by Newt Gingrich   link to original source

Finally, there has been a lot of commentary about the Supreme Court's narrowly divided decision last Thursday (Boumediene v. Bush) to allow enemy combatants like those terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Let me be clear where I stand: This is among the most arrogantly irresponsible Supreme Court decisions in American history and it cannot go unanswered by the other two branches of government. It is an appalling dereliction of duty if the executive and legislative branches fail to explicitly and swiftly reassert their sole dominion over the national security policy of our country.

There is significant precedent in American history for believing that the legislative and executive branches can act to restrict the reach of judicial decisions as well as force the judicial branch into changing its views when they are out of touch with the constitutional values, practices, and traditions of America.

President Thomas Jefferson and the Jeffersonians successfully fought back against the Federalists' use of the courts to impose their agenda over the will of the people. After the Federalists lost the election of 1800, but before the new Jeffersonian congressmen took office, the Federalists more than doubled the number of federal circuit judges (from seventeen to thirty-five) and packed them with loyal Federalists. The Jeffersonians reacted by simply eliminating all eighteen new federal circuit court judgeships.

President Abraham Lincoln refused to treat the Dred Scott decision, which both declared unconstitutional a federal law that had limited the extension of slavery and that blacks were not citizens under the Constitution, as legally binding on the executive branch. For example, his administration issued U.S. passports to free blacks and signed legislation that placed restrictions on slavery in the federal territories, positions at odds with the Dred Scott decision.

And in June 1942, when German spies who had landed in the U.S. to carry out acts of industrial espionage were captured by the FBI, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted swiftly to signal to the Supreme Court that he was not going to entertain court intervention. First, FDR issued an executive order on July 2, 1942 that the detainees were to be subject to trial immediately by military commission. FDR also made clear to his attorney general what his reaction would be to any writ of habeas corpus: "One thing I want clearly understood . . . I won't give them up . . . I won't hand them to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus." FDR understood the Supreme Court was supreme in the judicial branch but it was not supreme over the other two political branches.

The executive and legislative branches possess clear constitutional powers to check and balance decisions of the judicial branch. The Boumediene decision requires that the executive and legislative branches act to reestablish a constitutional balance among the three branches. I will be writing more about this subject in weeks to come.

The Supreme Court and terrorists' rights
by Hugh Hewitt   link to original source

Thursday's 5-4 decision awarding "unlawful combatants" at Gitmo --terrorists-- the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" has left millions of Americans stunned.  What in the world is the majority of the Supreme Court thinking?  Justice Scalia, writing in dissent, was blunt:

    "America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

    The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

These are harsh words, unusually so even for ordinary debate, but amazingly so among the nine.  Justice Scalia is quite obviously as frustrated with his aging colleagues as are the vast majority of Americans.  There’s a war going on.  These terrorists and their still-at-large allies are trying to kill us.  The president and the Congress, including many Democrats, took the blueprint the Court delivered the last time it addressed the matter and passed a statute specifically tailored to the demands the Court’s five justices laid out.  Now that Supreme Court-mandated approach has been struck down, and the “great writ” is open to the worst killers who have ever set their sights on the homeland.

What this means, of course, is more litigation, more delays, and more confusion.  Only one thing is certain: Our terrorist enemies still at large must be amazed, amused and encouraged by the continued insistence by legal elites that they be treated like petty American criminals rather than fanatical killers eager for martyrdom.  It is as though the five justices and their clerks are wholly ignorant of the rising stack of books and flood of articles detailing the nature of the enemy and their creed of death.

What is more alarming than the prospect of ignorance on the part of the majority is their collective seduction by hard left elites, particularly those in the Academy.  Supreme Court justices don’t get out much.  When they do it is typically to the nation’s law schools and to judicial and ABA conferences, where they are no doubt surrounded by thousands of elites who have as much experience with the war as the justices, but are perhaps even less well read on the nature of the jihadists’ ideology and tactics.  Andrew McCarthy’s brilliant new book, Willful Blindness, A Memoir of the Jihad, recounts how unprepared the American legal system was for the assault by the fanatics when it first crashed into the World trade center in 1993 and how even after 9/11 it could not adjust to cope with the war in which we are engulfed.  Obviously the highest rank of our legal elite have not yet come to grip with the nature of the enemy.

We have to pray that Justice Scalia is wrong though common sense tells us he is right.  The majority’s indulgence of the killers’ demand to be treated as ordinary Americans or as aliens journeying through our land is as astonishing as it is dangerous.  By asserting its preeminence over the combination of the president and the Congress, Justice Kennedy and his colleagues have certainly proven they are not at the top of the least dangerous branch.  Far from it, in fact.  The dangers the majority subject us to are all too apparent.

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

6/12 Mike refutes Obama's attack on McCain


6/13 Anchors talk about Huckabee joining Fox


6/13 Discussing Tim Russert's death