Huck PAC

June 30 Goal:
10,000

Donations so far: 10,042

Help Us
Dump the
Congress

On August 22nd Huck PAC supporters will gather to meet one another and make phone calls on behalf of Huck PAC endorsed candidate Bob McDonnell.  Bob is running for Governor of Virginia.  He has what it takes to be a great leader for Virginia. 

Our goal for the day is to make 10,000 calls to Virginia voters. We are asking participants at each House Party to make a few calls using their cell phones.  You do not have to make calls to attend a Party and participation is FREE.  We will provide the lists of voters names and phone scripts for everyone willing to participate.

First though, we need House Party hosts.  If you are interested in hosting a House Party or want more information please contact Katie Beth Harris at Huck PAC or call Huck PAC at 501-324-2008.  Her email is katiebeth.harris(at)mikehuckabee.com.

As we identify House Party Hosts we will add their party information to the map below. 

View August Huck PAC House Parties - Aug. 22nd in a larger map

Dear Governor Huckabee,

I am truly frightened for my children and my descendants when I consider the country that they are presently on course to inherit. By the agenda of the president, his enablers in Washington, and the Leftists in the state capitol building here in Sacramento, we are leaving our children a state and country that are worse off than what we inherited. With the pending federal health care legislation, we and our children are “this close” to becoming fully owned and controlled peons of the state – permanently.

We have a president who goes around the world speaking and acting as though the United States is a perennial culprit. Even before the election he began saying, “We’re going to fundamentally change America.” That was not benign campaign rhetoric. He doesn’t intend just to fix some things here or make some adjustments there, he intends to change out the very fundamentals – the values in the Declaration and the Constitution – upon which our country is built because he believes that they are fundamentally flawed. He has called our Constitution “a charter of negative liberties.”

I firmly believe that most Americans – even many of the ones who voted for this president and want to “give him a chance” – do not share his sentiments regarding our country, and already some are beginning to feel offense at his denigrations. Patriots on both sides of the aisle long still to believe in the goodness, the graciousness, the exceptionalism and the glory of America.

It is upon this difference that conservatives have an advantage; this is where we will find victory. We don’t need to change our values or become more moderate. “Re-branding” is not the answer. No, we will find our way out of the wilderness when we begin to offer a counter-point to Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America.” I am fully convinced that the remedy to our plight is to incite a great awakening by calling boldly for a rediscovery, a rebirth, of our founding values.

Of course we need to be right on points of policy, and we need to offer innovative solutions and an attractive presentation, but those are not enough. The moderate and the young postmodernist whom we might never win over on “the issues” will come to our camp when their hearts are stirred to envision an America that they can believe in. They need to hear the great stories of the shining city on a hill. They need to know that America hasn’t progressed and improved in spite of its fundamentals but because of those fundamentals. They deserve to know the true record: that although America was born into an imperialist and slave-holding world, it was America – as the writings of Jefferson and Lincoln tell us – that was born with the promise deliberately embedded into her birth certificate that a subsequent generation would fully realize liberty for all – and this they did a mere four score and seven years later.

Americans will then be able to discern that the fundamentals as found in the Declaration and the Constitution are the true agents of hope and change – not the sophistry of some demagogue.

Governor Huckabee, in this most perilous time, I believe that this is the prescription by which Republicans will find their way and by which Americans can rediscover their birthright before it is too late. We need to spread an infectious sense of pride in the America of her fundamentals.

For America and our children,

Brian Snow

Dear Mr. Burns,

I listened with great interest to your show tonight between 9:00 and 10:00 pm on the topic of selective reduction. If only I had been able to call in and offer my two cents.

If you find that my opinion offered here merits consideration, then please share it with your audience at your next opportunity.

My wife and I brought children into this world with the assistance of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Before doing so, we looked deeply into the issues attached to IVF, established our boundaries, the proceeded deliberately. Today we have four beautiful children: three girls and one boy.

The cardinal principle from which we operated is a moral one: every embryo created should be given the best possible chance at continuing its natural life cycle, i.e. being implanted, brought to term, and delivered to realize its potential. Since we believe that one should not create persons with intention to destroy them (as in selective reduction), we precluded this concern by fertilizing eggs conservatively, and only two embryos at a time were implanted in their mother’s womb. None were “reduced,” thrown away, or otherwise destroyed. When one rolls the dice conservatively, one risks getting nothing for the $16,000 they paid for an IVF cycle. There is a cost to living within boundaries, but, more often than not, a higher cost to living without them.

I must interject here regarding the term “created.” Actually, neither we nor science created anything. Simplified, IVF is just a facilitation of the meeting of the natural ingredients after which the resulting new lives are placed in their natural environment until transition to the next stage of their life cycle. For science truly to create an embryo, scientists would construct the organelles and other sub-cellular structures from scratch, then assemble them into a complete respirating and functioning embryo. Perhaps it is more correct to say that science “facilitates” what usually happens naturally.

The point I kept hearing you make more than any other during the hour on this topic was this: if we’re okay with employing science to “create” life, then shouldn’t we also be okay with employing science to extinguish that same life? (I hope I repeated your thought accurately enough.)

To test your assertion, let me then offer a scenario and a question. Suppose a woman brings sextuplets to term whose genesis had been facilitated by IVF. That is, without the intervention of science, those six children would not exist. Two years go by, and the woman realizes that she has not the means to care for all six of the children, to provide adequate nourishment and otherwise any foreseeable “quality of life” for all of them. Since science helped to bring these children into the world, would you then argue that the woman should be offered a legally-protected prerogative to employ science toward the termination of the lives of any of her toddlers? Why not? …because a toddler is a person, but the unborn is…..is what?

What is the unborn?

Is the unborn a person?

This then is the crux of the controversial life issues, of the debate over selective reduction, of the debate over abortion.

Given any scenario, given any quandary, if you wouldn’t advocate taking the life of a toddler, then why would you advocate taking the life of the unborn?

It always comes down to this one question: Is the unborn a person?

We agree that at some point along the life cycle of a human, that human becomes a person. Is it at the very beginning? Is it at the end of the first trimester? Is it at birth? Is it, as Peter Singer asserts, when a human becomes aware of her desire to survive (between two and three years old)?

It seems to me that the onus is on the advocate of selective reduction (or abortion) to discover honestly when a human becomes person, and then not to breach a zone of moral safety within which that threshold exists. Otherwise, he becomes guilty of, or at least complicit in, the taking of lives of innocent persons.

Regarding selective reduction, discussion of whether personhood is achieved at conception isn’t really necessary because that’s not when selective reduction is performed. No, selective reduction is often performed at twelve weeks gestation, and is almost always performed between ten and twelve weeks gestation. At this stage, the little person has fingers and toes, and its heart has been pumping since the seventeenth day after conception. Take a look at any human embryology text; what I’m saying is true.

Yes, I said “person.”

Neither size, level of development, environment, nor degree of dependency eliminates or precludes personhood.

My daughters are not non-persons because they are smaller than me.

My son is not a non-person by virtue of being less developed than me.

There is nowhere I can go where I become a non-person by virtue of being in that place.

Dependency upon an insulin pump does not cause one to be a non-person. My young children are dependent upon me or another adult for their survival (remove their caretaker, and see whether they last more than a week), but I doubt you would argue that they are non-persons.

Therefore, I hold that the unborn is a person and that every embryo created should be given the best possible chance at continuing its natural life cycle. Certainly, no human life should be created if the intention from the outset is to destroy it.

Sincerely,

Brian S.
Sacramento

PS – I hope that you, an agnostic, will appreciate that I had no need to invoke religion to make the case for the personhood of the unborn. As our Declaration says: These truths are self-evident… Brian Snow Embryo Images

Brian Snow Children

The California Supreme Court by a near unanimous vote of 6 to 1, upheld Proposition 8, which they should have.  This is the second time that the people of California had affirmed traditional marriage with their votes, and this time, the Court accepted that the role of the court is to uphold the Constitution—not to re-write it.   On November 4, 2008 voters in California approved this new amendment to the California Constitution, which says “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” 

Marriage should be defined as a marriage between one man and one woman. I support a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman so that we can have a clear affirmation of the only definition of marriage that has existed throughout history and which in fact reflects the beliefs of people on both side of the political spectrum, including President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton..