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.
Must-reads for conservatives:

• Charles Krauthammer: Environmentalists pick up where communists left off
• George Will: When "market-based" is a facade
• Mike Adams: Our states' right to kill the rapist
• Ed Koch: McCain wrong to spurn Hagee
  

Planned Parenthood's obscene profits
by Michelle Malkin   link to original source

GOP presidential candidate John McCain sounded more like a Democratic presidential candidate (a recurring trend) when he joined the Left's oil industry bashers a few weeks ago. Asked by a North Carolina voter whether he supported a Jimmy Carter-era windfall profits tax, McCain responded: "Um, I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere -- and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax -- that's not what bothers me -- but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market."

Here's an idea for all the hand-wringing GOP strategists in Washington wondering what it will take to win back disgusted economic and social conservatives: How about a Republican presidential candidate who will talk about the tax-subsidized abortion industry the way McCain talks about the oil industry?

In April, the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion -- with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That's a third of Planned Parenthood's budget.

And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? In 2006 alone: 289,750 abortions.

Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers. But the executives of Planned Parenthood have escaped government scrutiny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices, deception and deadly windfall.

In Washington, D.C., the family of 13-year-old Shantese Butler filed a $50 million suit against Planned Parenthood after a botched abortion left the girl permanently injured and infertile. Students for Life of America reports that Shantese was left with "severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation and a small bowel tear." In addition, parts of the unborn child were found inside Shantese's abdomen.

In Nebraska, Planned Parenthood refused to disclose the terms of a settlement with another victim whose botched abortion resulted in a perforated uterus, massive blood loss, an emergency hysterectomy, permanent infertility, seizures, and lifelong pain and suffering. According to the suit obtained by Life News, the woman instructed the abortionist and his assistants to stop, but was told: "We can't stop." The Planned Parenthood employees held her down to complete the procedure.

Where's the subpoena-wielding Henry Waxman? Can Orrin Hatch spare a moment from investigating the New England Patriots to probe Planned Parenthood's efforts to advise underage teens on how to circumvent parental notification laws to secretly obtain RU-486, the abortion drug cocktail? Where is the concern for the women and children who were mistreated by Planned Parenthood clinics in Kansas, where Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline has filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the abortion racket, with charges ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions?

And where are Nancy Pelosi and the For The Children brigade to investigate the shocking evidence of Planned Parenthood's nefariousness exposed by undercover student journalist Lila Rose?

Last year, Rose caught a Planned Parenthood official encouraging a female minor to evade statutory rape laws in order to obtain an abortion in California. In February, Rose released undercover tapes of her discussion with an Idaho Planned Parenthood official eager to accept money from a racist donor who wanted his funds earmarked for aborting black babies. In April, she released video of clinic officials in New Mexico and Oklahoma willing to take money from a blatantly racist donor. One Planned Parenthood staffer admits that "for whatever reason, we'll accept the money."

For whatever reason, Washington has turned a blind bipartisan eye to this bloody, government-funded business -- and pro-life, limited-government conservatives in the Beltway have gone along with subsidizing it. "Obscene profits," indeed.

Why sex is not equal to race
by Kevin McCullough  link to original source

The sexual behavior that one chooses to engage in, will never be equal to the status of a person's race. Confusing these two truly different concepts is dishonest. And those who claim otherwise do so for manipulated outcome to redesign society.

Normal people have understood this since the beginning of time.

The activist California Supreme Court does not. In the court's recent ruling pertaining to the mandated attempt to redefine marriage - and to tyrannically force that redefinition upon the voters of California - four judges raised the choice of sexual desire, inclination, and behavior to the same level of class status as racial ethnicity.

In doing so they set themselves up for more problems than they can envision because of such a leap of logic, lack of scientific evidence, and the general willingness to override the votes of 63% of the Californian population. These four judges have equated, in the eyes of the law, the choice of who one chooses to bed as being equal to what color of skin a person is born with. In doing so they have now laid down future arguments for further redefinition of marriage to include nearly any sexual union in both number and combination that a person can imagine. By redefining marriage, but then limiting that redefined definition to only include "pairs" of persons, the court has opened itself to claims of discrimination from bi-sexual persons who may very easily wish to be in a legal sexual "relationship" that includes a person of both genders, not to mention heterosexual polygamists. Each of the groups, who choose sexual partners for whatever reasons they do - will be liable to claim that the State of California must end discrimination against additional "alternative" lifestyles, and extend a yet still more redefined view of "marriage" to them as well.

Yet it is simple to understand why the judges are so wrong.

Romantic actions, such as flirting, hitting on someone, soliciting a phone number, and being bashful in asking someone on a "date" are all volitional acts of conscience and of choice. Consensual sexual actions from simple hand-holding, to kissing, following all the way through the act of sexual consummation are again choice based. Choosing to act on those urges - defines the individual's sexual orientation. With large numbers of people even now championing the fact that they've chosen the choice they currently are involved with, sexual identity, practice, and enthusiasm have become increasingly fluid.

Pop culture tells us so. Consider the number two song in the country this week: Katy Parry's "I Kissed a Girl!"

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

The weekend's biggest movie Sex And The City is reinforcing this belief with a closing monologue from the film's main character Carrie Bradshaw: "It's not in the label of being husband/wife, bride and groom, or man and woman that's important... it's getting beyond the labels and seeing the person..."

Yet that is in essence the problem. We humans aren't mere collections of DNA, water, plasma, and bone. We are not in essence biologically "the same." Men and women serve distinct purposes, functions, and roles in the furtherance of society.

A woman who is African American, can no more be a white woman the next day regardless of how much she wished to (if she even would). Likewise a Latino man could not go to bed one night at 5'8" and wake up the next morning to find he was black, 7'2'', and the starting center for his local NBA franchise. Race and other truly genetic based parts of life - skin color, height, shape and forms of features are pieces of ourselves that only God Himself had the choice in determining.

Who we romance, date, move in with, and have sex with - is something He's left to our free will as a matter of choice.

The truth of the matter is we as humans have always had a natural urge to resist what is best for ourselves. The activists that argue for the redefining of marriage know this full well. But they love the pursuit of the perceived "forbidden" even more so. Over time, mere participation in private sexual matters does not satisfy and thus they have become more brazen in their attempt to radically change the face of human society. Their attempt is to make those who view non-traditional sexual arrangements as abnormal, the activists hope to force them to feel isolated, punished, and eventually silenced.

Yet one overwhelming fact stares them in the face at every turn. God designed it so that only the sexual union of a man and a woman can create a life - and therefore extend society and civilization.

If a black man and a white woman conceive a child - it will likely have a skin tone that mixes the look and characteristics of both racial make-ups. But two people of the same gender - through sexual expression - do not create a hybrid of what their two sets of genetic DNA consists of. Sexual orgasm by two people of the same gender - in fact - produces nothing.

Race is external, determined by an authority beyond humanity, and leaves the person no choice in adjusting it's existence, impact, or results in their life.

Romantic pursuit, formulation of relationships, and engagement of sexual activity are determined completely by the actions, choice, and decisions of the persons involved.

Make no mistake, many a hard working black man has been overlooked for a promotion that he fully deserved - because of his skin color. Yet no one should be able to even ascertain the bedroom habits of one's co-workers except for yet one more choice - the decision to talk about it.

Racial discrimination costs the households of people of color thousands of dollars per year. Those who form non-traditional "romantic" attachments, and engage in non-traditional sexual practices have nearly three times the amount of expendable income on average than the normal husband/wife household.

Ultimately the citizens of California are smarter than the four arrogant black robes who sought to push an agenda down the throats of the voters. Californians are able to assess that who a person calls on the phone, takes on a "date," or invites into their bedroom - has never been, nor will ever be close to equal to the color of a man's skin.

And as such - it is increasingly apparent that rights, status, and standing should not be given special consideration over those elements of our lives we can control.

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.

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