Source:  http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010782

Does this mean Mike Huckabee is the opposite of Rudy Guliani... social conservative vs. fiscal liberal?  Not something we need.  While I think he seems like a good guy, I don't think he's Presidential yet.  Good VP candidate, but not POTUS.

Quote from the article from Phyllis Schlafly:  "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

It also appears he kept a lot of Clinton state appointees:  Mr. Huckabee's reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton. Zac Wright, a spokesman for incoming Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, was asked this year why 15 Huckabee agency heads had been retained. Most of them were "Clinton people," he replied, not "Huckabee people." Mr. Huckabee told me many of his agency heads had "apolitical" responsibilities.  I believe we learned what happens when we keep Clinton appointees.  This is why our beloved President Dubya got in trouble... he kept a lot of Clinton appointees in the District Attorney positions all over the nation then decided to fire a lot of them AFTER his 2nd term state.

And on the lighter side (please ignore that they came from Ron Paulians), some Canadian hosers tricked him in the Borat style. (Mike Huckabee Congratulates Canada for Preserving National Igloo)

Feel free to disagree.

EDIT:  I fixed the YouTube link.  Townhall obviously doesn't like it when you do your own HTML.  You get what you pay for I guess... it's cheap as free.

Democrats seem to try to push a socialist agenda upon America while proclaiming, "It's for the children!"  Yet when Republicans and the White House say "no," they come out as the bad guys.  How can they come out as good guys on this issue?  In addition, Hillary Clinton proposed a $5,000 per new child account if she becomes President.

Of course, everything is thought of to be free.  Yet, nothing from the government is free... unless you're an illegal.  The money has to come from somewhere.  The Liberals/Democrats/Socialists say it'll come from taxing the rich.  It's funny, though, that when you tax the rich, it somehow hits back at the middle class.

It's also weird that the way this State Childrens Health Insurance Plan is being paid for by a cigarette tax.  You want old people to smoke so they can make kids healthy.  Please tell me how that makes sense!

Why do Americans go ga-ga over government handouts?  Do they really think they're entitled to all this stuff from the government?  Are Americans stupid to think they get these things for free?

This is going to be a hard pill to swallow.  Republicans must be smart in their response.  I'm not sure what the right way to come out of this is, but they have to make Americans realize that the government shouldn't be too involved in health care.

Americans need to wake up and realize that socialism sucks.  Progressiveism sucks.  Communism sucks.  Ronald Reagan said, "The government is not the solution.  Government is the problem."

Source:  WND

Governator Ahnold Schwarzenegger just signed a bill that bans words such as "mother," "father," "husband," and "wife" in public schools.  Apparently, these words are offensive to gay people.  Instead, kids will be indoctrinated that devient sexual preferences are normal.  How far will it go?  Will kids be turned into gays, and told that heterosexuality is wrong?

This is wrong!  This is travesty!

KISS MY @$$, CALIFORNIA!  Go back to Mexico or become your own country.  Let your state be destroyed by the abnormal lifestyle you choose to run rampant, but leave my country alone.  Go kill yourself with AIDS and drug overdoses, but don't make my kids accept your crap.

To Dr. Dobson, Ms. Shlafly, Mr. Wildmon, Ms. Folger, and many others:

I continue to read story after story about the displeasure of the current field of Republican candidates.  Whether it be Rudy's abortion stance or McCain's amnesty bill or Mitt's Mormonism, those who are considered leaders in the Christian Right movement continue to say that there is no one that's a good choice in the Republican field.  However, I submit that there are good candidates to choose from in the "lower tier."

The one I'd like for you to research is Duncan Hunter.  Congressman Hunter is a man of God, and is solidly pro-life.  He has supported many pro-life bills, and he has promised to nominate pro-life judges.

One major item that Roe presented was the question of personhood.  If the fetus did have personhood, the Roe decision could be questioned.  Congressman Hunter wrote a bill that would grant personhood to the unborn child.

Congressman Hunter is also a big supporter of keeping our national sovereignty.  He is opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Trans-Texas Corridor (a/k/a NAFTA Superhighway).

No, he may not be a minister in the church.  No, he may not have done anything "heroic" in Vietnam.  But yes this man has what it takes to be President.  He is right on lots of issues.  He is someone we should give a good look at.

It is unfortunate that I see discouragement among the nation's Christian leaders.  We won't be able to find a human candidate that will be 100% for what we are for.  However, I do know there are better candidates in the so-called "lower tier" than there are in the "upper tier."  While I agree that we should not be voting for someone because he is not the evil of two lessers, supporting a 3rd party candidate will most definitely lead to a Hillary Presidency.  We cannot and should not allow that to happen. 

I'm just a "youngun'" with a wife and a baby on the way.  However, I do believe that what happens in 2008 will affect our future.  We do not need neo-Communists such as Hillary or Obama in the White House.  We cannot allow our religious liberties be restricted while degenerate and distasteful lifestyles be allowed to run free.

Thanks for your time.  And continue to pray for the person that the Lord has ordained for us in 2008.

The Cajun Maverick

Here are my arguments against it.

1. Housing is taxed.

2. Medical care is taxed.

3. Not-for-profits are now taxed.

4. The rich will get a HUGE tax break while shifting more burden to the poor. While I am for a lower taxes for everyone, I dont think the rich should be able to get such a huge break that they will based on what I've read and understood.

5. From what I've read, and this could be wrong, but it does not appear businesses are taxed. This essentially shifts the burden back on individuals.

6. The 23% rate that's often quoted is inclusive of the tax. For instance, if a candy bar was originally $1, the new price will be $1.30. 23% of $1.30 is $.30. Truly, the tax is 30%.

7. You can't completely abolish the IRS as the FairTax promises.  First, you have to keep the IRS open for 3 years for the statute of limitations of refunds.  Second, who is going to issue the supposed prebate checks and collect the revenues?

8.  You can't trust politicians to swap one for another.  We could wind up with both at the same time.

9.  What will happen during the transition period?  Will there be a transition period?

Comments are welcome.

Sources:

The FairTax: A Trojan Horse for America?
Against the FairTax Proposal
FairTax - Income Taxes vs. Sales Taxes