May 24, 2018


The message you have just received was delivered by Mike Huckabee and includes advertising powered by PowerInbox.  These ads help bring this newsletter to you free of charge. 

Today's Commentary:  Message to frustrated readers, furious FBI agents, and RUDY GIULIANI --- Join me in Branson on June 12 -- Illinois has problems -- Starbucks clarifies -- Millennial of the Year -- Evening Edition - May 23 - Daily Verse

Help elect Christian candidates from the State House to the White House.  Men and women like Pastor Mark Harris of North Carolina who won his primary this week against a well-funded Republican incumbent.  Support Huck PAC with a donation today. DONATE HERE


If you enjoy the newsletter also, please forward it to a friend and tell them they can subscribe for free at


My commentary on Mark Levin’s argument on the unconstitutionality of Mueller’s appointment has generated tons of responses from readers, so many that it’ll take me a while to catch up. But there’s a cynical common thread: Thanks, Governor, for explaining this, but you realize it won’t matter, nothing will happen, the swamp is too thick to drain, the left is too entrenched, the media are in it with them, there’s nothing anybody can do. Yes, folks, I share the frustration, but the only way we can change things is to push back as hard as we can. If we back off, it’s over.

Common wisdom says that shining a light on roaches makes them run. But these infiltrators are a different species of roach, calling themselves "confidential insect sources" instead of what we know they are. Catch them in your beam, and they just lie to your face (they also get book deals) and say: “We are NOT filthy roaches...we are "we were, uh, PATROLLING your kitchen to track down the REAL pests! Yeah, that’s the ticket! We were doing you a favor. You should be GLAD we got into your house.”

So we have to fight these vermin. Some of my readers expressed skepticism that any lawyer wouldn’t already know about the Appointments Clause, but Mark Levin actually addressed that when he brought up the subject on Tuesday, saying that bureaucrat-lawyers such as those within the FBI and other departments would not necessarily have that much of an understanding. Their brains function in certain ways that pertain to the kind of work they do: warrants, indictments, trying cases, etc. Levin says they probably don’t know other parts of the Constitution all that well.

After hearing from so many who doubt anything will come of this, I concluded that the most likely way –- perhaps the only way –- the Appointments Clause could make a difference would be if it gets argued before the Supreme Court. And right after having that thought, I read a comment from former lawyer (who confessed he’d practiced law “before God relieved me of that burden”) James Nearen, who also happens to lives somewhere in my neck of the woods—er, beach.

Mr. Nearen writes to say that he’d heard Levin on the radio and agrees with him, but he adds that such an esoteric argument, to be successful, would have to go all the way to SCOTUS. (It does appear so.) In the meantime, he cautions Rudy Giuliani --- are you listening, Rudy?? --- that he MUST NOT allow President Trump to answer ANY questions. If Trump answers even one, it could be seen as a “waiver of a legal defect,” which I think means he wouldn’t be able to make the Appointments Clause argument from that point on, even if it’s valid.

He also mentioned something we should all know by now: that there’s no getting around the fact that any questioning by Mueller will be a perjury trap. So there would inevitably be an allegation of perjury, even if Trump is trying his best to be truthful, followed by an attempt at impeachment. Nearen says that even if Mueller’s team is committing legal malpractice, that fact wouldn’t help the President.

Again, are you there, Rudy? DO NOT let the President testify under any circumstances. Put the Appointments Clause argument together and get it before the Supremes. We might have just enough Supreme Court justices who care about constitutional protections of Presidential power.

Finally, in response to news from the Daily Caller that several FBI agents want subpoenas so they can reveal what they know about the agency's misconduct, Michael Caputo has announced that those rank-and-file FBI officials don't have to sit around waiting for a subpoena and that a fund has been set up to pay their legal fees; go to


Mike Huckabee

Commentary continues below advertisement


Join me in Branson June 12

By Mike Huckabee

I'm coming to Branson at Silver Dollar City on June 12th.

Join me and a host of great guests including Tony Orlando, Irish Tenor, Anthony Kearns, Country singer Moe Bandy, the Shanghai Acrobats and much more! The show starts at 11 am at the SDC Opera House and ends at 1pm. You'll even get first entry and the best VIP seats in the house! Attending the show is free, but you will need to purchase an admission ticket to the park. You can enjoy all the attractions and other great Silver Dollar City shows the rest of the day. Just click here for all the details:



POLL: Do you support the return of prayer to our schools? VOTE HERE


Illinois has problems

By Mike Huckabee

If you had to guess which state was losing population the fastest, you’d most likely pick California. But reports that you’d be wrong. There are always those eager to flock to the West Coast regardless of how loopy the government is, and that doesn’t even include the stream of illegal immigrants that Gov. Brown is waving across the Southern border.

In fact, United Van Lines reports that Illinois is now the #1 state for rentals of outbound moving vans. Chicago’s WGN-TV reports that last year, Illinois lost 33,703 citizens who moved elsewhere, and 37,508 the year before that. The Chicago Tribune notes that Chicago has seen a net loss of population for three straight years and is the only major U.S. city that’s lost citizens consistently over the last five years. The Tribune editorial board recently wrote that between the high cost of living and the sky-high taxes, it no longer makes financial sense to live in Illinois, and many people agree. Last year, the state dropped from fifth to sixth in population.

But why would anyone want to flee Illinois? It’s a great state in so many ways. It’s the “Land of Lincoln”…but unfortunately, for the last few decades, it’s been the land of Obama, Rahm Emmanuel and many other liberal Democrats who have created one of the ultimate “blue state models” by running Chicago since 1931 and holding large majorities in the state House and Senate. Republican Bruce Rauner was elected Governor in 2014, carrying every county except Cook County (Chicago), of course. But his battles to force spending reforms and stop tax hikes have had mixed results (he’s twice vetoed state budgets, but his veto of a budget with billions in higher taxes was overridden.)

Despite all the talk of crime and gangs in Chicago, the #1 reason cited by ex-residents for fleeing Illinois is the reason that Democrats insist doesn’t really exist: they were driven out of their homes by crushing taxes. Some of the expatriates told the Tribune that they could never get out of the financial hole in Illinois. At least one said he wouldn’t have minded so much if he’d seen any improvements in infrastructure and services after the tax hikes, but he didn’t and couldn’t figure out where all that tax money was going. In their new states, they pay so much less in taxes that they can live in bigger houses and still put away money in savings.

As Breitbart notes, the Illinois legislature’s reaction to this news is a proposal to raise taxes even higher. Well, naturally: there are fewer people, so they’ll need to pay more to prevent the unthinkable: the government having to spend less.

I like to imagine that one day, the entire remaining population of Illinois will consist of Barack Obama and Rahm Emmanuel, and they’ll be arguing over who has to pay the tax bill for the entire state budget. At that point, I wonder which one of them will become a Republican first.


Starbucks clarifies

By Mike Huckabee

It took just 48 hours after Starbucks announced its new “woke” policy of letting anyone come in, use the restrooms and hang out even if they don’t buy anything before the company was scrambling to clarify that, no, they are not attempting to become the world’s first chain of homeless shelters with $4 lattes and biscotti.

Both customers and employees complained about the policy potentially exposing them to dangerous lurkers and questionable hygiene, and the jokes were brutal (I tried to be gentle with mine, which might be why it’s quoted in the article.) So just to make it clear that they don’t want Starbucks to turn into a Frappuccino Flophouse, the company issued this clarification:

“When using a Starbucks space, we respectfully request that customers behave in a manner that maintains a warm and welcoming environment by: using spaces as intended, being considerate of others, communicating with respect [and] acting responsibly.”

Well, that oughta do it! What are the odds that homeless street people would act irresponsibly after being respectfully requested not to? Of course, they could always argue that this doesn’t apply to them because they aren’t actually “customers” if they don’t buy anything, are they?

I’m laying odds we’ll see at least three more “clarifications” of ever-escalating desperation before Starbucks finally realizes that “progressive” virtue-signaling and the realities of running a business mix about as well as a whipped cream and mustard macchiato and they return to the time-tested principle of "Buy something or get out."



Millennial of the Year

By Mike Huckabee

I think we’ve found the winner of the Millennial of the Year Award.

Mark and Christina Rotondo of upstate New York tried everything to get their 30-year-old son Michael, who’s been living in their house for the past eight years, to move out already. They offered him advice, pleaded with him to get a job and get his life together, gave him $1100 for moving expenses (he took the money but didn’t use it to move), cut off his food and phone, and finally resorted to sending him a legal eviction letter ordering him to vacate.

So, of course, he took them to court to fight it. Acting as his own attorney, he told the judge that his parents’ behavior toward him has been “really unfair to me and really outrageous,” and that “I don’t think trying to destroy someone is tough love.” He claims to have an income and a successful business, although he didn’t specify what that was; and he noted that he has a son himself, although he doesn’t have custody (there’s a surprise.) He said he plans to move out, just not today, or in 30 days, but he said he can’t imagine still being in his parents’ house three months from now (I’ll bet they can imagine it.) He claimed that three months is “reasonable;” still, he asked the judge to order his parents to let him stay for another six months. The judge called that request “outrageous” and ordered the parents’ lawyer to draft an order outlining terms of the eviction. But until an official eviction date is set, the judge allowed Michael to remain in his parents' home!

This is going to make for an awkward Thanksgiving dinner. Yes, I know Thanksgiving is more than three months away. Want to bet he’ll still be there?



POLL: Do you support the return of prayer to our schools? VOTE HERE


Evening Edition - May 23

By Mike Huckabee

A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!


Daily Verse

"Let all your things be done with charity." - 1 Corinthians 16:14

Did you miss reading a newsletter recently?  Go to our archive here.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

No Comments