Donate to OnlyHuckabee.com

Keep the Huckaball rolling!

 Townhall.Com Talk Radio - Mike Huckabee

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.

McCain's disappointing defense of marriage
by Paul Edwards   link to original source

Just how low do presidential candidates have to go to win votes? Is there historical precedent for debasing oneself in pursuit of the nation’s highest office? I only ask the question while wondering aloud why presidential candidates in the current campaign find it necessary to make appearances on the basest of television venues. In recent weeks John McCain has ventured into the hostile environs of Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” Stephen Colbert’s “Colbert Report,” and now in what must confirm McCain’s insatiable appetite for self-flagellation, McCain has made a very painful appearance on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” where he endured a verbal flogging around the issue of traditional vs. homosexual marriage, with DeGeneres telling the senator that in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision she can “now legally get married, like everyone else.” Ellen then opened the door wide for Senator McCain to defend traditional marriage. McCain basically punted.

Rather than defend marriage on moral principle as the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, the establishment of the home as the basis of a civil society, and as a union entered “before God” in accordance with His laws, McCain offered a compromise, emphasizing that, “people should be able to enter into legal agreements” for the purpose of sharing insurance and decision-making. He pointed out that same-sex couples are not denied such legal benefits and should be content with the legal status of civil unions. Such a position leaves unstated all of the conservative principles relative to the defense of traditional marriage, the first principle being that marriage is not primarily a legal contract, but is fundamentally about reproduction, valued by the state because it provides a context for the rearing of children who have been birthed as a result of the sexual union of a man and a woman, thus securing the future for a stable and free society.

Ellen denies these fundamental principles of marriage, arguing for same-sex marriage on the basis of erotic love, grounding her argument in the mistaken idea that marriage is a civil right denied to gays and lesbians in the same way this country denied the freedom of slaves and the suffrage of blacks and women:

I think that it is looked at—and some people are saying the same—that blacks and women did not have the right to vote. I mean, women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870, and it just feels like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people—all of us. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same.

There is absolutely no correlation between the equality denied blacks and women and marriage being denied to gays and lesbians. All humans, regardless of ethnic or gender differences, have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights on the basis of their common humanity. When Ellen argues that “we are all the same people” she is absolutely correct that, in terms of our humanity, we are all equal. But she misapplies the equality standard to sexuality, insisting that there is no difference between the erotic love and relational commitment of homosexual persons versus that of heterosexual persons. She couldn’t be more wrong.

Love-making for same-sex couples results only in physical and emotional satisfaction while the same cannot be said of heterosexual love-making, which carries with it the possibility of procreation. No such possibility exists in a homo-sexual union.

Ellen is equal to me in terms of personhood and the individual human rights that accompany personhood. It is a fundamental denial of the human person to deny blacks and women equal status. But no one is denying Ellen and her lover status as persons or the rights that inure to them as human persons by denying a right to marriage. The rights of marriage are granted to those who can meet the biological standard necessary for entering a physical union that, all things being equal, can produce offspring. This is the fundamental nature of marriage. Any other benefits of marriage are subordinate.

To say that because we share the same rights as human persons we are the same in nature, physicality and even sexuality is to deny reality. I am not the same as Ellen in terms of human biology. She is a female and I am a male, and as such there are fundamental differences between us that are naturally innate which, even with radical surgery, cannot be changed. As Michael Medved has said, “‘Sex change’ procedures do nothing to alter the most important distinctions between males and females, and blur only a few external characteristics.” Even advances in biotechnology have not succeeded in changing the basic fact that the female body is capable of carrying and bringing to life the seeds of reproduction, a feat the male body cannot accomplish.

To argue that marriage for those of same-sex attraction is a fundamental human right in the same way as suffrage is nothing more than changing the subject. John McCain allowed Ellen to change the subject and in doing so demonstrated that he is a poor apologist for conservatism on one of the key issues that really, really matters.

How is it possible that the “conservative” presidential candidate makes an appearance on a television program hosted by a wildly popular, openly lesbian comedienne one week after a landmark California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage and is unprepared to rigorously defend the conservative position on traditional marriage? McCain was clear, however, when he congratulated Ellen on articulating her position in a very eloquent fashion.

Let’s hope for more boldness and clarity from the only candidate who has at least a chance of being a standard-bearer for traditional marriage in the next presidential term.

Windfall-Profit Nonsense
by John Stossel   link to original source

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to raise the price of oil, as well as most everything else, and lower the value of the pension and mutual funds that union members and retirees depend on.

Of course, they don't describe their plan that way. Instead, they call for a windfall-profits tax on the oil companies.

But it's the same thing.

Taxing a "windfall" sounds appealing, but stock prices are based on expected profits. Throw a new tax on profits, and retirement portfolios of regular people take a hit.

"Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months," says her website (http://tinyurl.com/3jtlfp).

"They sure can afford it," she told an audience in Indianapolis.

Whom does she think "they" are?

Obama says: "It isn't right that oil companies are making record profits at a time when ordinary Americans are going into debt. ... That's why we'll put a windfall profits tax on oil companies...".

Taxing "windfalls" is politically rewarding, but in the final analysis, only people pay taxes. When a corporation is taxed, the burden falls on workers (through smaller raises), consumers (through higher prices) and shareholders (through lower stock prices).

Do Clinton and Obama really want to tax these innocent people just to spite oil executives for high profits?

Anyway, what is a "windfall"? Any answer is arbitrary. Obama says it's the profit made off oil that's priced above $80 a barrel. Why not $70? Or $90? Did he pull that number out of a hat?

At least he's honest enough to call his tax a windfall profits "penalty." But why do the companies deserve to be penalized? Have they behaved badly?

It's not their fault that demand for oil skyrocketed because of booming economies in China and India, and that tensions in the Middle East pushed prices up. It's not their fault government regulation keeps them from drilling in promising locations like Alaska and offshore, and harasses them when they want to build new refineries or expand old ones. It's not their fault the dollar has deteriorated dramatically.

Being in the oil business is profitable, but not as profitable as you may think. Last year, average earnings in the industry (net income divided by sales) were 8.3 percent. (They are lower this year.) Other industries have done better. Beverage and tobacco firms had returns of over 19 percent.

Yes, oil company profits have surged as the price of oil rose, but bigger profits are good for America. The vast majority of the money goes not to the pockets of oil executives, but to exploration for new oil. If you take the money away, who is hurt?

We don't have to speculate because we have experience to draw on. "We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980," The Wall Street Journal writes. "It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3 (percent) to 6 (percent) ...".

Repeating that would not be a good thing for the harried working families Clinton and Obama claim to champion.

Spiking prices and profits encourage investors to take risks to find more oil, develop oil substitutes and increase efficiency. We don't need a "national energy policy" because we already have one. It's called the free market. When oil prices rose a few years ago, old fields with hard-to-reach oil in Oklahoma were suddenly worth operating (http://tinyurl.com/5bqmog).

Economics 101: incentives matter. Now that the price of oil has reached a new high, oil companies and other entrepreneurs have more incentive to find new sources of energy.

Only that -- letting the profit-motive work -- will bring the price of oil down.

Interfering with markets may be good for politicians, but it's bad for everyone else.

The Bullet Counters
by Thomas Sowell   link to original source

"Killing an Unarmed Man." That is how the front-page headline in the New York Times characterized an incident in which a man tried to run over a policeman with his car and was shot by three policemen on the scene, including his intended victim.

An automobile is a deadly weapon. If you are killed by an automobile, you are just as dead as if you had been shot through the heart.

A phrase like "an unarmed man" makes a talking point-- as if matters of life and death should be discussed in terms of how you can spin a talking point.

The biggest and most common talking point when the police fire at someone is counting how many bullets they fired. There are politicians, media people and-- above all-- community activists who can work themselves into a rage over how many bullets were fired.

If we stop and think-- which of course the demagogues hope we will never do-- it is hard to see any moral difference between killing someone with one bullet or with dozens of bullets.

People who have never fired a gun in their lives say that they cannot understand why the police fired so many bullets. If it is something that they have never experienced, there is of course no reason why they should be expected to understand.

But, even after confessing their ignorance, such people often proceed to spout off, just as if they knew what they were talking about.

It is very easy for a pistol shot to miss, even in the safety and calm of a firing range, much less in a desperate situation where a decision must be made in a split second that can cost you your life or end someone else's life.

In a life-and-death situation, nobody counts how many bullets he is firing, much less how many bullets others are firing. It is not like a western movie, where the hero whips out his six-shooter, fires one time, and the villain drops dead.

A factual study of more than 200 real life incidents where the police fired their guns found that most of the shots missed.

Even at a distance as close as six feet, just over half the shots missed. This may be far less surprising to people who have actually fired pistols than to people who have not.

Not only can someone who is shooting a pistol for real not know beforehand whether or not his shots will hit the person who poses a danger, often it is not clear afterwards whether the shot hit anybody, depending on where it hit.

Nor does even a clear hit always render the wounded person harmless. When your life is on the line, you keep on firing until you are damn sure it is safe to stop.

Only afterwards does anybody count how many shots were fired. That is when the editorial office heroes give vent to their righteous indignation and their ignorant assumption that better "training" or better "rules" can solve the problem.

Such people seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition, that there are times when decisions have to be made and acted upon immediately, whether or not we know as much as we would like to know or can carry out our decisions as perfectly as we wish we could.

People who are full of excuses for criminals-- bad childhood, unemployment, unfair world-- sit in the safety and comfort of their editorial offices and presume policemen to be guilty until proved innocent.

And they concoct clever headlines about killing an "unarmed" person, as if someone trying to run you over with a car poses no danger.

Where the person killed is black, as in the present case, that settles it, as far as the politically correct commentators are concerned, even though two of the three policemen who shot him are also black.

Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement.

The police themselves can back off on law enforcement when irresponsible charges can ruin their careers and their lives. No one pays a higher price for that than low-income minority communities where crime flourishes.

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 I


Part II


Part III


Part IV


Part V