Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff!
Today's newsletter includes:
- History Lesson
- The Biggest News Around My House
- Surprise, Surprise
- Two Democrats Say No
- The Gov. answers reader; we can't say election wasn't stolen
- Impeachment II
- Bible Verse Of The Day
By Mike Huckabee
As a companion piece to our recent commentaries on election integrity, we offer thanks to Instapundit for compiling this lengthy history of Democrats and liberal media figures who have cast doubt on election results or made or promoted claims of stolen elections -- prior to the 2020 election, of course, when talk like that suddenly became treason and insurrection.
The Biggest News Around My House
By Mike Huckabee
Okay, I know there’s a lot of national news out there, but this is the biggest news around our house, so pardon me for making it a headline.
I hope you will get behind Sarah’s campaign and offer her your full support. I can’t think of anyone who is more knowledgeable on the workings of the Arkansas government, or who could possibly do a better job. And that’s not just her dad’s pride talking!
Plus there is this:
By Mike Huckabee
The Washington Post announced that now that Joe Biden is in, they will no longer be “fact-checking” everything the President says. They figure Biden will be like Obama and never lie (Ahem – “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” “Obamacare will save you $2500 a year,” etc. etc. etc.)
Of course, we’ve all learned how the media define “lies” from a Republican: any opinion they disagree with, any joke at their expense, any deliberate exaggeration to make a point, any figure of speech they can take literally, and any statement of objective fact that they can find a way to nitpick or come up with an alternative interpretation.
But that’s okay if they don’t want to chronicle all the lies Biden tells (he’ll govern as a unifying moderate, he won’t ban fracking, nobody who makes less than $400,000 a year will pay a penny more in taxes, etc. etc. etc.) We’ll just keep doing it for them.
Oh, and the Federalist is also on the case.
Two Democrats Say No
By Mike Huckabee
Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer’s plan to do away with the filibuster and impose radical left plans to “remake” America with a simple one-vote majority may have already hit a wall, let us pray.
Monday, two moderate Democrats, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, made it clear that they would not go along with eliminating the filibuster under any conditions, meaning that anything Schumer wants to pass would still need to attract at least some Republican support to reach 60 votes.
The news caused Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to drop his demand for preservation of the filibuster as a condition of a power-sharing agreement, which seems naïve to me. I strongly salute Sens. Manchin and Sinema for having the integrity to stand up against such an outrageous power grab. But I question the wisdom of betting the future of America on their ability to withstand the pressure (and sadly, I’m sure, the threats) that are likely to come their way because of it.
Of course, they could always end that by switching parties. Just throwing that out there.
By the way, even President Biden says he’s opposed to doing away with the filibuster. After so many years in the Senate, surely he remembers how doing away with it for judicial nominees came back to bite the Democrats in the rump when Republicans won back the White House and Senate.
The Gov. answers reader; we can't say election wasn't stolen
Monday’s morning edition featured commentary about Sen. Rand Paul’s spectacular response to George Stephanopoulos’ insistence that he say the 2020 election was “not stolen.” I’m glad to see that Sen. Paul has continued to receive glowing praise from many, including Dan Bongino, whose comments we heartily second. As we had done, Bongino also tore apart HR-1, which destroys state legislatures’ constitutional right to make their own election rules. (We watch Dan on Rumble; hope you’ll subscribe and check him out there.)
Neither I nor Sen. Paul have said the 2020 election was “stolen," because to do that, one must have proof that it would have turned out differently. Saying it was stolen is not the same thing, though, as very strongly SUSPECTING it was stolen. To help us make that distinction, we’re featuring this letter from a reader that arrived in response to yesterday’s commentary.
Mike, you say you read every comment and I believe you are a man of your God and therefore keep your word, so I assume you are reading this. When you personally will not say the election was stolen, and you have acquiesced to this stolen election, then you are becoming one of them. Your commentaries and information are generally spot on, but if you are giving in to the takeover that they have accomplished then you are no longer worth listening to.
Let it be known that I campaigned wholeheartedly for you when you were running for president. Still have some Huckabee for president signs around, but without concerted leadership from people like you to undo what has been done, we are all doomed and you are complicit in it.
William, thank you for writing. Let me assure you, I have not “acquiesced,” am not “one of them” and, under the (shudder) Biden administration, see something new every five minutes that makes me want to undo the horrible thing that has been done. “Complicit in it”? Them’s fightin’ words.
Given everything we know about the 2020 election, I have not said and, like Rand Paul, will not say the election was "not stolen." In fact, it seems impossible for any reasonable person to conclude with certainty that it was not. There is much to suggest it was. But it’s very important to understand the world of difference between saying the election was not stolen and NOT saying the election WAS stolen.
To say the election was not stolen is exactly what the Leftist Inquisition demands –- professing and clinging to an unfailing orthodox belief that it wasn’t stolen, even though no one can prove it wasn’t. Ironically, this requires a huge leap of faith from the generally-secular left. On the other hand, they don’t have to prove it wasn’t stolen. The burden is on us to prove otherwise.
For months in this newsletter, we’ve carefully outlined every last detail of the unholy mess that was the 2020 election. Some allegations were absolutely confirmed, such as Wisconsin’s illegal use of unsupervised dropboxes –- more on that below –- and others remain unconfirmed, such as the alleged vulnerabilities of Dominion voting machines. We’ve stayed extremely factual, covering a complex situation involving a variety of highly suspect activities in several key states. We can definitely say there were degrees of error, illegality and outright fraud. And much of this appears to have been carefully targeted.
We also believe the Supreme Court should have addressed issues that they failed to, particularly in the largest suit brought first by Texas. But so far, we can’t prove that President Trump would otherwise have won, although what we have seen and certain statistical anomalies strongly suggest it.
With all respect, William, your insistence that I use the exact word “stolen” to describe the election is a little like George Stephanopoulos’ insistence that Rand Paul use “not stolen.” There’s a certain reality now that we have to take into account if we want to deal with the new administration’s attempts to unconstitutionally shut down their opposition. I assure you, they are quite serious about doing that.
In other words, we have to fight smart. No, William, I have not acquiesced –- not even close. I want to thank you again for writing, and also to use your letter as a lead-in to another discussion of how the left put their thumb (the left one, naturally) on the election scales. You see, I can’t prove the Democrats are guilty of stealing the 2020 election, but I can say without reservation that what they’re doing now to take control of future elections makes them look very guilty indeed. As we wrote on Monday, the various provisions in HR-1 elevate cheating to an art form. That’s why I’ve dubbed it “the Destruction of Democracy Act of 2021.” It’s hard to imagine them crafting a bill like this if they weren’t planning to use it to, in effect, legalize their own cheating in its many forms.
And a new report from the Amistad Project shows their tactics for what they are.
This scheme involves the funding by Mark Zuckerberg of an organization called the Center for Tech and Civic Life, which we've reported on in detail. The issue here is how much control private companies, throwing vast sums of money around, should be allowed to have over American elections. The executive summary of this report is a must-read.
"Funded by hundreds of millions of dollars from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and other high-tech interests, activist organizations created a two-tiered election system that treated voters differently depending on whether they lived in Democrat or Republican strongholds,” the report says.
Read about how the CTCL operated in Wisconsin by granting money to targeted cities under what was called “the Wisconsin Safe Election Plan.” Under this plan, the CTCL retained the right, under its grant document, to ORDER ALL FUNDS RETURNED if the cities that got the money “did not conduct the election consistent with CTCL dictates.” It was that money that paid for all those unsupervised dropboxes the CTCL wanted placed around in specific locations, without approval of the state legislature. Who was running this election, anyway?
It occurs to me that the Democrats and leftist groups went to so much trouble and spent so much money to arrange all this, why else would they have done it if it weren’t to make, um...sure...Biden won? A little, you know...insurance...at the very least? Can even George Stephanopoulos look at a report like this and seriously say HE'S absolutely certain the election wasn’t stolen?
By Mike Huckabee
If I haven’t taken “Impeachment II: TDS Boogaloo” seriously as a sequel to last year’s impeachment, it’s because it doesn’t deserve to be. Most sequels fall short of the original, but then, most originals that spawn sequels are at least marginally good. This sequel combines all of the original’s blatant partisanship and lack of grounds with even further deficits, like an absence of due process and a plot that’s completely ridiculous (“They’re going to impeach a President…who left office a month ago!”) It makes “Weekend at Bernie’s II” look like “Citizen Kane.” It’s the kind of sequel that emits such a stench that the studios won’t even let critics see it in advance.
On Monday, the stink of illegitimacy got even stronger with news that Chief Justice John Roberts had declined to preside over the Senate “impeachment” trial. The quotes are because the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside over Presidential impeachment trials. Even if Roberts didn’t explain why, it’s clear from his refusal that this is not a legitimate Presidential impeachment trial. If it were, Roberts would have to preside. If he doesn’t, then it’s either illegitimate in the eyes of the SCOTUS, or it’s an acknowledgement that Trump isn’t President anymore, and the Senate can’t impeach a private citizen.
Instead, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a far-left partisan who’s already voted to impeach Trump once and has lately been tweeting about how guilty Trump is, will preside. Of course, he’s now insisting that he will be completely fair and impartial, which at least makes this bad sequel funnier than “Weekend at Bernie’s II.”
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are hearing from their constituents, looking at mounting evidence that the Capitol riot was planned well in advance of the Trump speech that Democrats blamed it on, and just considering the embarrassing spectacle of wasting precious time while the American people are suffering from the endless pandemic lockdowns on a “stupid” and “counterproductive” (Marco Rubio’s words) partisan circus and saying, “No thanks."
The Democrats need 17 Republican votes to reach the two-thirds majority necessary to “impeach” a President who left office over a month before. Anyone want to bet the farm that there are that many GOP Senators who want to be as popular with the base as Mitt Romney is?
BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY