it should be "something dark happened there." >> i've been having trouble with my editor, as it were, but it's rollicking. >> how did he end up here? i'm harris faulkner. in two seconds, huckabee starts.

he claims that 92% of the american people support his proposals. he calls them common sense approaches. frankly, there's nothing common nor sensible about -- one thing

we all agree on, we never, we never want to see another shooting like sandy hook or aurora. but it would help if we at least would bring our brains to the discussion. this week in california, the president claimed that the sandy hook massacre was done by a fully automatic weapon, which it wasn't. those have been banned since 1934. colorado congresswoman diane did he get was virtually laughed out of room when she suggested limiting the size on a magazine would eliminate the large capacity magazines because she somehow imagined that magazines disappeared or disintegrated after use. the nra has been mocked by the media and elites just like new york mayor mike bloomberg. for suggesting that armed good guys are the best defense against armed bad guys. but the mayor ought to stick to

banning salt, soda, smoke and loud sound because the average numbers in victims of mass shootings stopped by the police is about 14. the average number of victims when the shooter is stopped by an armed citizen is 2.5. in the past 50 years in the united states, every mass killing with four or more victims with a single exception of the gabby giffords shooting, every one was in a gun-free zone. senator graham reported that 80,000 people failed a background check last year, but only 66 were prosecuted. maybe it's not a lack of laws. but a lack of law enforcement we need to work on. many proposals seek to ban a gun because of the way it looks rather than the way it works. the fbi for example reports that in a recent we're, only 4% of gun crimes were committed with a rifle. 66 committed by a handgun. more people are killed with hammers and clubs than with rifles. now, according to studies by criminologists, between 800,000

and 2.5 million crimes are actually prevented by armed citizens. a blogger called the wolf points out that a gun puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger. a 75-year-old retiree is put on the same footing with a 19-year-old gang banger and a single guy is on equal footing with a truckload of guys swinging baseball bats. of course, it's best to avoid dangerous situations. good to flee from them. great when a cop is right there to intervene. but if those aren't options, and the person attempting to rape, rob or murder you or maybe even a loved one, when that person can't be reasoned with or run from, then wearing a gun is p petter thpet -- better than wearing a toe -- better than wearing a toe tag. mr. president, that's my version of common sense.

kim jong-un, aka, little kim, is beating his chest with threats of nuclear attacks on the united states and our allies in the region. are we on the brink of a nuclear war? here's a look at the developments there over the past week. >> reports from south korea say the north has moved two medium range missiles capable of hitting u.s. military forces in guam to its east coast. this comes after an ongoing series of threats from north korea, including propaganda videos depicting the bombing of u.s. cities. rallies of north korean military forces, pictures of kim jong-un signing an order for rocket forces to be on stand by to hit the u.s. now footage of the young leader joining in target practice during a military drill. the north korean government is warning foreign diplomats to get out of its capital of pyongyang to guarantee their safety. >> some of the actions they've taken over the last few weeks present a real and clear danger

and threat to the interests certainly of our allies starting with south korea and japan. and also the threats that the north koreans have leveled directly at the united states. >> the pentagon set up a missile defense system in guam and has deployed a warship off the coast of the korean peninsula and f-22 fighter jets at a base in south korea. >> how serious is the threat from north korea? joining us now is former vice chief of staff of the army and analyst general john cain. what threat does north korea pose, specifically to the united states, if any? >> i don't think they pose a direct threat to the united states. the missiles that they've advertised to be able to reach the united states most analysts

don't believe that they can. they certainly pose a very serious threat to south korea and we do have 28,000 troops there and some in japan is not very far away. the tension that you mentioned is part of a pattern that's been going on in north korea for 40 years for them to get attention. i mean, i think what's got everybody concerned this time is it is so much more strident than in the past in temps of threatening nuclear war. what we have here is a strong -- is a new leader who is trying to prove that he's a strong, capable leader, number one, to his people. these things have always had domestic consumption as priority one. the second thing, he's sending a loud message to the south korean new government that don't take us for granted. he's frustrated with the sanctions as a result of the missile and nuclear testing. i think that's the sum of what's taken place here.

what's got everybody concerned, governor, is not that he's going to fire a nuclear missile at the united states or start a war with south korea, is that given the new government of south korea shall the if you government in china, the relatively new government in north korea, the most experienced government is the united states government that there could be, in fact, a miscalculation. that's the concern. >> and our own military has been hit by massive budget cuts the last few years, drawing down forces, but coming after two very intense wars in iraq and afghanistan. now the effects of the sequestration. what are we capable of militarily, whether positioning forces or actually doing something in the event that things could escalate there? >> sequestration will certainly takes its toll on the united states military in the latter part of this year and for years to come rather dram atically if it continues. in dealing with had crisis, we have first-class capability to

deal with it. certainly we would move ground forces into the country to assist the 28,000 and the 600,000 man south korean military that is there and we have significant amount of air power and maritime superiority to deal with -- if there was a conflict. there's no doubt about it that the north korean leadership understands, if they initiated a war, they will lose that war and the regime will go away. most of all of this is trying to get concessions and also to preserve the extension of the regime. the regime preservation is their number one objective. >> everyone assumes that china is the key player in getting north korea maybe to stand down. any indications that there are back channel conversations between the u.s. and china and what could china's role be in getting north korea to just tamp it down a little bit? >> that's a great question, governor. i mean, we have tried for years to use the chinese to control

this militaristic regime. the fact of the matter is, the new government in china and that's what makes your question so critical now, seems to have an open in here for us to talk to them about maybe a new role for them in dealing with north korea. if that is the case, i mean, it's always seemed rather obvious, we can make a case that it's truly in china's national interest to have a unified korea on their border that's economically viable and trading effectively with them and would not have to have the u.s. troop presence and military functions that we have now in the country. they're there because of north korea, not because of china. so hopefully shall the new leadership sees that as something that's in theiral int. secretary kerry is going there next week. if that's the case, then we may be able to make progress. we have not been able to make any in the past.

>> general keane always a pleasure to visit with you. >> take care governor. were does the obama administration want to repeat the mistakes of the past by giving home loans to those who probably can't even pay for tem? we're going to talk about that as well as the president giving hollywood a pass on gun violence. that's next. >> i'd like to hear from you. go to my website, mike huckabee.com. tell me what you think on the lead feedback section or sign up for my facebook page and follow me on twitter. you can find a

back in 2008 when barack obama was running for president, the housing bubble had burst. the then democratic candidate said the government was partly to blame. >> we had a fundamental failure, though, in government regulation, and i think that was a real problem. we had a government that was not

paying attention to loans that were being made on assets that were shaky. the government should have had at a certain point stepped in and said we've got to tighten up lending standards or we're building a house of cards. >> the housing market has been slowly recovering, but the obama administration says too many people are unable to get mortgages. he's now urging lenders to give loans to borrowers with weaker credit. isn't that what caused the housing crash in the first place? joining me is larry gatlin, also former adviser to new jersey senator frank lautenberg, julie and red eye's andy levy. great to have you guys here. >> all right. >> julie, let me start with you. we went through this terrible housing collapse. people lost homes, they were in foreclosure, the banks on the brink had to be bailed out by the government, which i still think was nut. now the president is saying we ought to give loans to people

who really don't qualify. does that make sense? >> well, what doesn't make sense is allowing the banks secure advertises the mortgages. mortgage backed security is part of the reason for the great recession. i'm concerned about the fact that these banks, put them in the trenches that they can sell basically as junk bonds and at the end of the day you have horrible situations where the banks and the homeowners have to be bailed out. we have to make sure the banks and the lenders and the borrowers are in the position to be able to really be a good faith honest broker in terms of paying the mortgages back and not secure advertising them and selling them to somebody else. >> andy, the same pattern that we saw five years ago, we're doing it again. >> kwoi don't think the governm should be incentivizing them to repeat mistakes of the past. there's another issue. the notion that apparently that

everybody needs to own a home. i don't understand that. if you can't afford a house, you rent. i don't feel like a second class citizen, i don't have to wear a scarlet r out in public. if you can afford a home, great. if you can't, rather than take out a risky loan, keep saving up until you can afford a home and get a home you can afford. don't take out a risky loan to buy a bigger house than you need. the same thing we do with college. we decided everyone needs to go to college, we're going to give government loans and the cost of education skyrockets. we got to stop. the governments shouldn't be the judge of who should own a home or who should go to college. individuals need to make the decisions for themselves. >> larry gatlin says you can move in with him. that will be just fine. >> now i sort of want to own my own home. >> i thought you might. >> larry, what are we doing? >> when i was getting a cup of coffee, andy read my notes what i was going to say.

my dad never made more than $35,000 a year his entire life. this insatiable craving for a 3 $57,000 a year mechanic to own a $200,000 house. insanity doing the same thing over and over. my friend george w. bush went to chris dodd and barney frank on three different occasions with don evans, secretary of commerce and said fellas, this is unsustainable. help me. let's do something and they said no, barney frank got on tv on "meet the press" and said it's fully funded and all that. what do they do? it collapses. the whole thing goes to hell in a hand basket and the next thing they do, they name the bill to fix it after barney frank and chris dodd. that's how we do it in america. i'm not going to let them have it both ways. politicians want it both ways. i'm not going to let them. it's like the old boy a veterinarian and aid taxidermist, either way you get

your dog back. i'm not going to let them do that. not on my watch. >> this week the president was in colorado and his big crusade, as i said at the opening of the show is gun control. here's what his solution seems to be. >> every day that we wait do something about it, even more of our fellow citizens are stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun. now, the good news is colorado has already chosen to do something about it. [ applause ] >> all right, andy, is he letting the media, and particularly hollywood off the hook a little bit. i'm not saying they're to blame for violence. nothing said about it. >> the thing is hollywood likes to sit there and say this is what bothers me, the hypocrisy. hollywood likes to say none of it is their fault but they love to pat themselves on their back when they make an important movie or affecting the culture in a positive way. you can't have it both ways. approximate you're affecting the culture in a positive way and i

think they do, i think there were movies that helped the cause of race relations in this country, i think shifting attitudes towards gays and gay marriages in some sense hollywood had something to do with that. but then you have to look at yourselves and say maybe this other stuff we're making with just mind numbing violence is also affecting people. it bothers me that they want it both ways. >> there were great movies, dumb and dumber made an impact on education in america. >> that's right. >> that's right. >> julie? >> well, you have a problem infringing the second amendment. if you tell hollywood they can't do do something, that's an ing fringement on their first amendment. hollywood movies are all over the world. they watch our movies all over the world. the gun violence is not as vast in some parts of the world as here. i can't help but think that hollywood probably doesn't have much to do with it and we can't

tell them what to write. it's a first amendment issue. >> larry, you're an artist with creative juices. what do you think about saying you can't sing that or write that. >> absolutely not. my mama tell me that. she's 83. she weighs 85 pounds. if i said something really bad on tv, she might not whoop me, but she'd have that marine daddy of mine come do -- the media gets it. the thing about the media giving hollywood a pass, i mean, the media and hollywood, you know, they're twins separated at birth. the same agenda, the same thing. the thing that i see, i saw our vice president and he was really -- he was very emotional and it was sincere. when three, four days after sandy hook when he stood there and said those kids can't speak for themselves so i'm going to speak for them and it was very heartfelt and it is a position,

you know, that you can take. i would like to take this opportunity for a loving doting grandfather of two beautiful children to -- i would like to speak for those kids at sandy hook, for one of them. in what camera. here's what i would like to say, a loving grandfather, this is my sandy hook moment. if the janitor or the principal or one of my teachers had had a glock .9 millimeter and could shoot it like andy levy can shoot it, i may be alive. to demagog one side of the story and blame all of the gun deaths on too many guns, it is specious at best and laughable at worst. one janitor has it. if one of those kids had been saved because somebody could have put a bullet between that guy's eyes, i say have them packing heat and knowing how to use it. you're not going to hear that from the media. >> thank you all.

andy, julie, larry. catch andy on a new red eye at 11:00 p.m. eastern and midnight out west where it's a little easier to watch at midnight. you can put it on your dvr and tape it. larry will be joining me later for the world debut of a brand new song that you are going to love. well, the president says he's going to give up a percentage of his own pay to show his solidarity with government employees. the vice president joe biden says, it ain't so. my reaction to quotables from the notables. that's next.

one of several top officials who agreed to give back part of

his pay to the treasury for those affected by the sequestration. attorney general eric holder wasn't sure he was ready to give us part of his salary during the week. but later in the week, the justice department released a statement saying the attorney general intends to take a pay cut equivalent to the amount any justice department employee has to take as a result of the sequestration which is up to 14 days this fiscal year so that the funds can go back into the treasury. i think this is laudable. it's not going to fix the funding. by the way, the first person to say this was chuck hagel. i've had a lot of things to say about chuck hagel and was against his nomination and confirm nation. but i had to give him credit for taking a hit along with those in his department. secretary of state john kerry did the same thing. give credit where credit is due. it's not going to fix it but it's symbolic. it's symbolic that joe biden

said no. he's going to keep all of his because none of his employees are affected by the sequestration. keep in mind, this is the same joe biden whose over all charitable giving was .0, .06%. but he wants to pay more taxes so that we, through government, can be more generous. thank you, joe. jana winter was sent to aurora, colorado, to cover the deadly theater shooting. she found a source that told her about a package that the shooter sent to his psychiatrist before the shooting. the source said, and i quote, "inside the package was a notebook full of details about how he was going to kill people. there were drawings of what he was going to do in it. drawings and illustrations of the massacre." now, colorado judge william sylvester issued a subpoena for

jana to up her source or face swrjail time. one with of the aspects of society and government is the freedom of the press. the press can't be free if the press is coerced by the government to give up information that the government certainly has the resources to go get themselves. this is an outrage o every american who values a free press. you may not like what the press prints or even how they arrive at their information. but let me say to you that the worst thing that could ever happen in our culture society government would be that the government would begin to dictate to the press when they have to give up their sources. i would say to the government, if the press is more competent than you, it's not a press problem, it's a government problem. you fix your house. don't infringe upon the first amendment rights of the press. [ applause ] >> nbc confirmed weeks of speculation when the network announced that jimmy fallon is going to be replacing long-time

host jay leno on the tonight show next year. before the announce president was made, jimmy and jay performed a skit together to show that it's not affected their friendship. ♪ tonight tonight ♪ why do they say we fight ♪ i like you, you like me, we're okay ♪ ♪ >> you know i love the good-natured you ared humor between these two. i've had the opportunity and let me say the privilege of being on jay leno's show on more than one occasion. he is one of the nicest, most gracious and thoughtful and humble people that i have ever met in the entertainment business. he is an absolutely delightful human being who goes out of his way to make people feel good and never to be insulting. he's truly funny without being disgustingly vulgar and i've always appreciated him. i'll miss him. i like jimmy fallon and i wish

him well. i'm glad the two of them are making this transition a comfortable and a nice one. i hope that jimmy fallon will be as funny and as good hearted as jay leno has ever been. jay, we're going to miss you and i wish you the best. [ applause ] well, my next story is a family that came to america for the freedom to raise their kids without government control. now they're in danger of being set back. coming up, a home-schooling family and their classic example of the government telling them that it knows better for you and your kids than you do. stay with us. years old.

i'm harris faulkner, in about two second, back to huckabee. a few weeks ago on the show, we told you about a couple that fled germany in 2008. they came to america to raise their children as they see fit. they want to freely home-school them in accordance with their strong christian beliefs. home-schooling is against the law in germany.

parents send their children to a government-approved school. if they don't, they face fines, jail time and risk custody of their children. this couple settled in tennessee where a judge granted them asylum. now they're in danger of being deported. their case is being disputed by attorney general eric holder who says germany's ban on home-schooling fails to violate the family's fundamental rights. the family have a petition to the obama administration to grant them permanent legal status which received nearly 60,000 out of the 100,000 signatures needed by april 18th nod in order to get a response. joining us from their home in tennessee is the couple and their six children. it's great to have you with us. thanks for joining us. >> hello. >> let me start with you. >> good to be here. >> this has been an ordeal for

you. when you left germany, did you feel you were perhaps imminent lip going to be arrested and that's why you had to flee right away? >> well, we more were fearing was that the custody of our children would be taken away from us. there was the fear that we had when we left. >> hanna, tell me about what was the biggest challenge that you faced with the curriculum that your children were going to be exposed to in germany and why you felt that that wasn't consistent with how you wanted your children to be educated. >> first, we took them out of school because they were -- we thought they would be harmed from other classmates and later when we looked into the textbooks, we found out that they teach against the values the bible wants us to teach

them, our children. >> when you came here, i don't think you expected that you would have then a conflict with the united states government over home-schooling because it's a pretty prevalent practice here and many parents across the country, not all of whom do it for maybe spiritual purposes but people do that. have you been surprised by the government's reaction and i'm speaking now of the u.s. government's reaction? >> actually, we were very surprised hearing that now it seems not even in america not to be a fundamental right for parents to educate or to decide on the education of their own children. we couldn't believe what we were hearing. >> now, your case goes before a district judge. how are you feeling toward it? i mean, do you have can have ke confidence that you will be granted asylum and not face deportation? >> we still are hoping very much

for a good decision so that we will be granted to stay here and get asylum. >> there's a petition drive that is going on right now and 100,000 signatures means the white house guarantees a response. you're at over 60,000 now. we're hoping that maybe by being on this show there will be another 40,000 or 100,000 people who will go and sign that petition and at least get you a hearing and at least get you before the white house and get a response. how important is that to your cause and your case? >> well, i think most important thing about this is that the government sees that not only we interested in getting asylum but also that the american people in general stand behind this case and it's all about freedom for parents to decide on their children's education.

>> you have a beautiful family. you and your six children, delightful. i know that this is really your life on the line here. you've come here to have the education that you want for your children and we hope that we can be of help maybe by encouraging our viewers to be part of the petition drive. if you'd like to sign the petition, go to the address, the website is there on your screen and i hope you will add your voice, your signature and your support. thank you very much for being here. god bless you all and we wish the best for the outcome. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> coming up, the president of -- foster, will be responding to the disgraceful testimony of a planned parenthood representative who said the decision to provide medical care to a baby born alive during a botched abortion, that that's up to the doctor and the mother who wanted to abort it. that shocking story is next.eac.

details at mikehuckabee.com. earlier this week, planned parenthood finally clarified that it is not in favor of killing babies who survive a botched abortion. that statement came several days later after last week's shocking testimony from planned

parenthood lobbyist in florida where lawmakers proposed a bill that requires abortion doctors to provide medical care for a baby that's been born alive during an attempted abortion. here's some of the exchange that snow had with lawmakers during that hearing. >> you stated that a baby born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family, is that what you're saying? >> that decision should be between the patient and the health care provider. >> i think that at that point, the patient would be the child struggling on a table, wouldn't you agree? >> that's a very good question. i don't know how to answer that. >> really? well, meanwhile in philadelphia where abortion doctor is on trial for murder, one of his assistants said that they're ordered to prevent life and ensure death even when babies were important and had visible chest movement.

in other words, breathing. joining me now is president of feminist for life, serrin foster. serrin x thanks for being here. i just find this appalling, that the employee of planned parenthood couldn't answer a simple question. is that baby that is alive on the table worth taking care of? explain how we have come to this point. >> it's indefensible. it's inexplicable as far as i'm concerned. i don't understand what they're thinking. but i don't agree with what they do in the first place. i think that there's so many women who are taken advantage of when they're in really desperate situations. it's up to us to really understand why are women ending up in abortion clinics and to do something approximate it before they ever get near the place. whether it's somebody who isn't clear about what happens after a baby is born alive, like melissa owe done.

you can't comprehend it. it makes no sense. but it doesn't matter in some ways whether this child is very small or very large inside the womb. this is discrimination, by size, age and location. feminists are supposed to represent those who are the most vulnerable to talk about being against discrimination and for justice for all. and so abortion is a betrayal of the basic tenets of feminism. women deserve better than abortion. our children deserve a chance at life. we're sitting here, i thought about coming to see you and being in this great city of new york and this empire state where i grew up as a little girl in the best country in the world and to sit there and think that it is the number one, women have more abortions here than any other city in america, highest rate of abortion, highest rate of abortion in the state of new york and the united states a developed country with the highest rate of abortion. means that when abortion comes in first, that women have come

in last. our children have come in dead last. except for the few who escaped the abortion procedure and have lived to tell the truth. and sometimes women die, like the woman in philadelphia, munger. i hope i'm saying her name right. she's a poor refugee who was vulnerable who went to the doctor and died. it's not just about the children dying, hundreds of women have died from abortions. it is legal but it is lethal and it's not good enough. >> women are being manipulated. is that a fair statement? the doctor, what he did was take advantage of them it would appear and manipulate them into a decision that maybe wasn't their decision. that's an abuse of women, isn't it? >> absolutely. it absolutely is. you're taking money for the terrible act of -- it's an act of violence against her as well as this child. it does nothing, does nothing for her when she goes home, she goes back to the same place

unloving, unsupporting family or a job that she doesn't feel she can make with a child or nonsupportive, maybe domestic violence situation with a husband. it's a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. abortion solves nothing. she goes back to the same situation. back with an empty womb or empty arms. we know now it's a baby. we know now. we've seen the beautiful images on sonograms. now the question remains, is this best for women? we say women deserve better than abortion. >> great slogan. women deserve better. serrin, thank you very much for being here. >> thank you for your works for the most vulnerable people in society. >> i appreciate that. serrin foster, feminist for life. coming up, larry gatlin will join us for the debut of a brand new song about government abuse. we'll be right back.

larry gatlin is back and we're going to be joined with the little rockers for the world premiere of a brand new song from larry gatlin. joining us today is bob higgins on drums, electric guitar. larry, this is a song never been performed in public before. you're going to premiere it right here on our show. >> i've been afraid to perform it in private. >> then maybe you shouldn't do it on this show. we've been doing pretty well. >> i figure you can handle it. you're a big boy, you can handle it. you've been in the fray before. even if they're talking bad about you, at least they're talking about you. >> they must be talking, absolutely. >> let's do it. >> let's knock her out. ♪ >> we're going to find your own

business, we're going to -- we're going to recreate ♪ we're going to make sure all the folks pay their fair share ♪ ♪ we're going to apologize and energies everywhere ♪ ♪ we're going to put a tax on everything standing still and everything that moves ♪ ♪ and the beatings will continue until morale improves ♪ ♪ yeah ♪ no offense intended but we're smarter than you ♪ ♪ we went to princeton, harvard and yale and you went to arkansas u ♪ ♪ we know how to get america back on track ♪ ♪ we're going to go approximate to the whip on every american fact ♪ ♪ we're going to mind your own business ♪ ♪ we're going to mind your own

health ♪ ♪ we're going to make sure all the rich folks pay their fair share ♪ ♪ don't apologize and surrender to our enemies everywhere ♪ ♪ and we're going to put a tax on everything standing still and everything that moves ♪ ♪ and beatings will continue until morale improves ♪ ♪ yeah. feets will continue until morale improves ♪ ♪ here's what we want you good hard working americans to do. we want you to sit there and take your beating like a man or a woman because we know how to do this and the more money we tax you and send to, you know, wherever, egypt. y'all take it because we know how to do it. and the beatings will continue until morale improves ♪

♪ ♪ two, three, four ♪ the beatings will continue ♪ until morale improves -- i think they got it, gov ♪ ♪ play it out. yeah ♪ ♪ ♪ the beatings will continue until morale improves ♪ ♪ [ applause ] >> i think they got it. >> all right, larry gatlin and a brand new song. debuted, premiered right here on the huckabee show. that's it for this week. until next time, from new york, this is mike huckabee. good night and god bless.

there we go. good job. we're going to mind your business ♪ ♪ we're going to mind your own ♪ going to recreate everybody

[ woman ] we had two tiny reasons to get our adt security system. and one really big reason -- the house next door. our neighbor's house was broken into. luckily, her family wasn't there, but what if this happened here? what if our girls were home? and since we can't monitor everything 24/7, we got someone who could. adt. [ male announcer ] while some companies are new to home security, adt has been helping to save lives f over 135 years. we have more monitoring centers, more of tomorrow's technology right here today, and more value. 24/7 monitoring against burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide starting at just over $1 a day. and now get adt installed for just $99. isn't your family worth america's number-one security company, adt? our girls got us thinking, but the break-in g us calling. and after buying two of everything,