BY MIKE HUCKABEE
Blessings on you and your family and from all the Huckabee staff! Thank you for subscribing and I hope you enjoy today’s newsletter.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
A great day for the pro-life movement
Friday morning, just as we were about to go “to press,” the Supreme Court finally released its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and just as the leaked draft suggested, it does overturn Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, sending the issue of abortion's legality back to the states.
Surprisingly, it was not as close as some believed, with even Justice Roberts concurring. However, Roberts wrote a separate opinion agreeing that Roe’s viability line “never made any sense,” but saying he would have taken a “more measured course.” Instead of overturning Roe, he would have continued recognizing a right to abortion that extends “far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further.” In short, he would have continued to micromanage an issue that the Court had no right to be involved in at all.
It’s a great day for the pro-life movement, which has worked tirelessly for nearly 50 years to not only save the lives of babies and help pregnant women choose life, but to win hearts and minds, and convince people what an obviously bad and unfounded ruling Roe has always been. While I don’t kid myself that radical pro-abortionists will bother to read what Justice Alito wrote, as he carefully explained why the original decision was wrongly decided, I hope that anyone on the fence will at least read it with an open mind.
And if they can’t bring themselves to agree with pro-life Christians, then agree with the radical pro-abortion activists who, upon reading the leaked document, screamed that a bunch of unelected judges shouldn’t have the power to make decisions for the entire public about such a personal issue as abortion. This Court completely agreed, which is why they overturned a ruling that did precisely that and sent the issue back to the elected representatives of the people.
The radical pro-abortion group “Jane’s Revenge” warned that it would be “open season” on churches and pro-life pregnancy centers if Roe were overturned, and called for a “night of rage” with physical violence. Now, it’s past time to start treating that as the terroristic threat that it is.
The same TV networks that gave wall-to-wall prime time coverage to the Democrats’ insurrection kabuki theater have been noticeably quiet about this open attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court with acts of arson and vandalism and threats of terroristic violence.
The DHS issued a warning to Catholic churches and pro-life groups to prepare for attacks. I hope they will take this seriously and be ready. I have a feeling that if any of these people ever finally face serious consequences for their rotten behavior, and find themselves unmasked, handcuffed and thrown in jail for a few years, it might scare them into behaving like civilized adults for the first time in their lives.
Lila Rose of the pro-life group Live Action responded, "This is the most coordinated & aggressive domestic terrorism in our nation today. All because extremists are angry that they may not get to kill children in the womb, on demand, without limit." But she said they will not deter pro-life people from carrying on their mission.
Now that the DHS has been forced to issue that dire warning, I wonder if they will finally acknowledge that the real domestic terrorist threat is coming from the left – you know, all those black-clad, masked thugs threatening other people’s lives and firebombing their offices and churches – and not from Trump voters and disgruntled parents at school board meetings.
What it all means
Law professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit cuts through the media hysteria and explains what the actual results of overturning Roe v. Wade will be. Pretty much what I've been telling people they would be for years.
Jan. 6: Dems undercut own argument with another FBI raid
No wonder Nancy Pelosi didn’t want Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan on the January 6 committee. We see that he has been one of its intended targets. It has to do with seeking presidential pardons.
Recall that the committee subpoenaed him but that he refused to testify under oath, saying (correctly) that it had been set up in violation of the legislation that had made such a committee possible. But on Thursday, testimony from others pointed to him and other members of Congress who allegedly asked questions about presidential pardons in the wake of the Capitol breach. The committee is trying to make the point that they wouldn’t have been asking about pardons if they didn’t think they were involved in something illegal.
Democrats are trying to tie some in Trump’s circle to a scheme to pick alternate slates of “fake electors” for the Electoral College. But choosing alternate electors to have in reserve is nothing new. If a recount is underway or an election is being contested, it makes sense to have Plan B ready. Besides, we all know Democrats have challenged electors themselves and even pressured them to change their votes in 2016, to stop Trump from being elected President. And the POST MILLENNIAL recalls how Hawaii ended up with two slates of electors from Hawaii in 1960.
Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, said on Thursday that Jordan did not mention a pardon for himself but did ask for “an update on whether the White House was going to pardon members of Congress.”
Here’s what happened…
But late Thursday night, in an interview with FOX News’ Shannon Bream, Jordan said, “I didn’t request a pardon; I didn’t do anything wrong.” He pointed out that this isn’t the first lie being told about him; California Rep. Adam Schiff, several months ago, presented a text of Jordan’s, but only after eliminating the context and changing the punctuation in a way that altered the meaning. That dishonesty was so egregious that the committee actually released a statement saying, “We regret the error.” (Error? It was a deliberate deception. Still, Jordan got a semi-apology.)
But Jordan explained to Bream that they did the same sort of thing to him again in Thursday’s hearing, playing an edited clip of him, obviously intended to mislead. NOTE: if these were real hearings instead of a partisan kangaroo court, the other side could object to this and correct the record.
“That’s what you do [mislead],” he said, “when you have a partisan committee that doesn’t allow Republicans on it --- for the first time in American history --- and you can’t do the cross-examination that every other committee in the history of the Congress has had except this one.”
As for Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy trying harder to get some real Republicans on the committee (Cheney and Kinzinger don’t count), Jordan said, “I don’t think that Nancy Pelosi was EVER going to allow any Republicans who were going to do the kind of cross-examination that needs to be done...She’d have found a reason to always object to someone, ‘cause this is the outcome she wants.”
It’s “completely partisan, one-sided, just a presentation,” with “no due process, frankly, at all in this entire committee,” he said, adding that she might have accepted more Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, but that would have been it.
He said that, yes, of course, he’d love to be in that room, cross-examining the witnesses, pointing out the cherry-picking and the hearsay being presented “in this packaged form, where they read it off a teleprompter, for goodness sake.”
Kinzinger actually said, “I know the only reason to ask for a pardon is because you have committed a crime.” Now, I don’t know who sought a presidential pardon from Trump and who didn’t, but I do have a problem with the Democrats’ assumption that pardon-seeking shows consciousness of guilt. Every Republican involved in this story was well aware of what had been done to destroy the life of Michael Flynn, for example, an innocent man who needed a pardon from Trump to end his legal nightmare because the judge in his case would not LET IT GO. And in the days since January 6, we’ve seen how easy it would be for an innocent person to find himself held without bail in terrible conditions for over a year and denied due process. Seems to me it would’ve been a good idea for all these Republicans to have an idea of where they’d stand legally in case they were prosecuted –- and persecuted –- by a weaponized ‘Justice’ Department. That in itself wouldn’t mean they were guilty of anything.
Speaking of weaponizing the ‘Justice’ Department, on Thursday, the very day that Adam Kinzinger led the questioning of three Trump-era DOJ officials about the allegiances of another Trump DOJ official, Jeffrey Clark, Mr. Clark was subjected to one of those early-morning FBI raids. Gosh, what are the odds?
At 7AM, twelve FBI agents and two Fairfax County, Virginia, officers were at Clark’s door, banging loudly and demanding that he come outside. He asked if he could put on some pants first. They said no. They raided his home, confiscating all the electronics. They even had an electronics-sniffing dog, to make sure they didn’t miss anything.
Here are the details.
During Thursday’s afternoon hearing, former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen testified that Clark, head of the DOJ’s environmental division under Trump, had gone against a careful DOJ policy by meeting directly with Trump and discussing election theft theories. So I guess that’s what this is all about.
“I just think we’re living in an era that I don’t recognize, Clark said. “And increasingly I don’t recognize the country any more with these kinds of Stasi-like things happening.”
I think that in juxtaposing this hearing with yet more tactics reminiscent of the East German secret police, the Democrats have just undercut their own argument. Even if you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong, why NOT check into the possibility of a pardon when you know what this ‘Justice’ Department is capable of?
Senate passes major gun bill
Thursday night, the Senate passed the “Safer Communities Act,” the first major gun bill to pass since the Brady Bill in 1994. Fifteen Republicans joined all the Democrats in voting for it, with Texas Sen. John Cornyn taking the lead in promoting it.
Republican supporters claim that the bill, which includes bipartisan items like funding for enhanced school security, mental health programs and expanded background checks (but no bans on specific guns) will help prevent gun violence but not infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. However, critics say the funding for states to create red flag laws opens the door to abuse and confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens without due process.
The bill now moves to the House, where it’s virtually certain to pass, and of course, President Biden will sign it. Then will come years of expensive lawsuits and innocent people having their rights infringed before (hopefully) the Supreme Court finally throws out any unconstitutional parts that should have been removed or clarified during Senate debate.
It’s noted in the linked story that the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, “was the major driver behind the bipartisan effort.” While that horrific shooting was heartbreaking, I have to say that I am disturbed to see the Senate using it as a reason to rush through a controversial bill with almost no time for debate that will almost certainly result in abuses and legal challenges.
When the Founders created the Senate, they envisioned it as a “cooling off” stage, where bills passed in the heat of passion by the House would be scrupulously examined and debated before being advanced into laws. As understandable as the anguish over Uvalde is, it's still being investigated and the Senate has already rushed through the first major gun bill in nearly 30 years, so quickly that some Senators barely had time to read it, much less debate and amend it.
With all due respect, we already have an impulsive, emotion-driven House of Representatives pushing to “do something, even if it’s wrong.” We don’t need two of them.
Schlicter is not impressed
Kurt Schlichter is definitely not impressed with Sen. John Cornyn's bipartisan gun bill. The phrase "sniffing glue" makes an appearance.
The Democrats react to SCOTUS gun ruling
In our brief, breaking account yesterday of the Supreme Court striking down New York’s restriction on law-abiding gun owners carrying weapons outside their homes, I said that the ruling seemed obvious based on the Constitution and previous SCOTUS rulings. If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and the Court has affirmed that personal right, then forcing people to prove to the state that they have a specific need to carry a firearm outside their homes seems clearly to be an infringement – especially when the reason for needing one for self-defense is so obvious in a place like New York, where other liberal policies have created a violent crime wave. It’s already so obvious to most people that the ruling will have no effect on existing laws in 43 states, as law professor and Instapundit blogmaster Glenn Reynolds explained.
Still, the ruling set off a predictable hair-on-fire reaction on the left. New York Mayor Eric Adams pulled out the tired “it will be like the Wild West” gun control trope. Critics responded that if he means people will be going around randomly shooting and robbing victims, that was already happening in New York under this law, which is precisely why New Yorkers want to carry guns in public for self-protection. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul also condemned the ruling and vowed to impose even more (unconstitutional?) restrictions on gun owners.
And once again showing his contempt for “our democracy” whenever the Courts don’t rule his way, President Biden condemned the ruling and his DOJ issued a statement disagreeing with it. They’re supposed to be an objective law enforcement agency, but this suggests, once again, that they will ignore Court rulings that go against their political beliefs.
As Prof. Reynolds observed, “When Democrats like what the Court does, it’s the supreme law of the land. When they don’t like it, it’s just, like, some court’s opinion, man.”
The most amusingly clueless reaction came from Keith Olbermann, who made news with a deranged Twitter rant calling for the Supreme Court to be dissolved and its ruling ignored (sounds like insurrection), claiming they were “forcing guns” onto states (by affirming the Constitutional rights of citizens to carry guns they already own?) and taking a sexist swipe at Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Even though he got deservedly roasted, it must have given him a nostalgic feeling to once again get a little attention with a deranged rant.
To give you an idea of how out of step with current Second Amendment trends the New York law was, here’s a map showing the states that allow concealed carry with those that put conditions on it colored blue. Notice the blue is all concentrated in the upper Northeast except for California, the only state in blue west of Pennsylvania.
Finally, it was illuminating to see how many of the left’s objections to the ruling completely ignored the Constitution and instead were based on emotional appeals and well-worn gun control tropes that were completely irrelevant to the case. Even the three liberal Justices' dissent was based on those arguments. It was so utterly beside-the-point that Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion that’s well worth checking out, just to see how he systematically exposed the faulty logic in each of their objections.
Another Court victory
Thursday, all the hoo-haw over the Supreme Court’s gun law ruling drowned out the news that the Court delivered another victory for Republicans and voter integrity laws in North Carolina.
The GOP legislature passed a voter ID requirement there. The NAACP sued, citing all the “Jim Crow 2.1/voter suppression” rhetoric that we heard about Georgia’s election integrity law despite the numbers of voters greatly increasing. GOP legislators said the state's Democrat Attorney General is not defending the law adequately (a Democrat attorney general letting politics determine how he does his job? Inconceivable!!) and sued to take over the defense themselves, which they argued is their right under state law. The SCOTUS agreed.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY:
Thank you for reading my newsletter.
For more news, visit my website.