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 --- Note to Chief Justice Roberts -- The Governor responds to two astute readers -- We Watch The Oscars So You Don't Have To -- Reject Identity Politics --- House Democrats are trying to kill The Second Amendment -- The truth behind "Democratic" socialism -- Big salute for Rep. Adam Kinzinger -- Green New Deal Cost Update -- Evening Edition -- Daily Verse
When conservatives complain about liberal activist judges, I believe this is what they mean. The Hill reports that a county superior court judge in North Carolina tossed out a constitutional amendment requiring voter ID – which was approved by an overwhelming majority of the state’s voters – on grounds that the Republican General Assembly is “so gerrymandered that its members do not truly represent the state's residents and thus should never have proposed a voter ID amendment in the first place.” He also struck down an amendment capping the state’s income tax on the same grounds.
Conceivably, this judge must believe he has the power to strike down any and every law passed by the legislature, or any constitutional amendment approved by the voters that was proposed by the legislature, just because he doesn’t approve of the way the districts were drawn from which they were elected.
This goes beyond an “activist judiciary” into the realm of a “Madness of King George" judiciary.
The NAACP celebrated the ruling, calling the voter ID amendment “racist” and an attempt at “unconstitutional overreach." The staggering judicial overreach doesn’t seem to bother them. I already wrote about this, but it bears repeating:
A study of the effects of voter ID laws in ten states published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation”…and they “do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites. The laws’ overall effects remain close to zero and non-significant, whether the election is a midterm or presidential election, and whether the laws are the more restrictive type that stipulate photo IDs.”
However, according to my own unscientific study, the effect of activist judges who overstep their powers and trample on the will of the voters has a major negative effect on both constitutional government and voters’ attitudes toward their government. But I suspect that if it keeps up at this rate, it will eventually have a positive effect on the sale of tar and feathers.
The Governor responds to two astute readers
By Mike Huckabee
Great point from reader Alan in response to my commentary on James Baker:
“In other words, Hillary Clinton and Obama were ok with sharing their privileged and confidential communications with the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans and Iranians –- but not with American conservatives who might invoke their Freedom of Information privileges. Hence, their 'friends' were their global comrades happy to tear America down in order to bring about international unity and their real 'enemies' were Republican conservatives seeking as patriots to preserve the distinct [attributes] of the American Republic.”
We Watch The Oscars So You Don't Have To
By Mike Huckabee and Pat Reeder
Last night at the Oscars…Oh, who cares? You didn’t watch it, and neither did I.
Fortunately, I have someone on staff who did. I say on the “Huckabee” TV show that “We read the news so you won’t have to.” Well, our staff writer and resident pop culture historian Pat Reeder (http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodhifibook ) watched the Oscars so I wouldn’t have to. We all salute him for his sacrifice. Here’s his report...
Reject Identity Politics
By Laura Ainsworth, Staff Writer
Watch out –- I just flipped through an “O” (as in “Oprah”) magazine and am loaded for bear.
Yes, I just came home from the beauty salon, the one place I “carry out my research” on women’s magazines, and I’m sorry to say that Oprah is doing her best to “mainstream” identity politics and political correctness in her March 2019 issue; on the cover it says “Great AWOKEnings --- the power of opening yourself to someone else’s experience.” It’s all about being “woke,” which is very, very important. So I borrowed the issue and have it sitting open next to me right now.
Even though it's my nature to be extremely open to other people’s experiences, I had to check this out. Starting on page 100, there’s a spread called “How WOKE are you?” Subhead: “It takes courage, compassion, wide-open eyes, and an equally open heart –- but if you can heed the call of your conscience, if you can look bravely and honestly within, you can help nudge the world toward a better place.” Okay, that part sounds good, so let’s get started. To kick off our discussion, here are a couple of sentences worth singling out from just the first couple of paragraphs:
House Democrats are trying to kill The Second Amendment
By Mike Huckabee
House Democrats are seeking to kill the Second Amendment using one of their favorite weapons: strangulation with red tape. They’re bringing two gun bills up for votes. One is a universal background check bill that would criminalize all private gun sales, such as a gun owner selling a gun to a lifelong friend, without the government’s permission. It’s named in honor of gun victim Rep. Gabby Giffords, and in a long-standing tradition of liberal gun control bills, it would not have prevented the crime it's in response to, since her attacker got his gun after passing a background check.
The other bill would allow the government to block someone from buying a gun by extending the background check period indefinitely through a never-ending bureaucratic timeline loop (see the link for details.)
Neither bill has much chance of making it past the Senate, but you should be informed about them. That way, the next time you hear a liberal call for “common sense gun laws,” you’ll know how they define “common sense.”
The truth behind "Democratic" socialism
By Mike Huckabee
Today’s top Democrats are competing fiercely with each other to see who can embrace the most aspects of socialism without admitting to being a socialist. Some try to split weasel hairs by insisting that “Democratic” socialism isn’t really socialism. That’s why all Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Democratic candidate for Chicago city council, Ugo Okere.
Okere helpfully explained that “Democratic” socialism, which he embraces, “is about democratic control of every single facet of our life.” And this is a good thing because “government is led by the people, not by big corporations, not by multibillionaires, and working people actually have control over who we elect to be our politicians, over how elections work, and over how our government is structured.”
But that’s not all: government should also manage our relationships: “Democratic socialism even extends to our relationships and how we treat each other. (It looks) at the world through a socialist-feminist lens, in how we treat people who are black, who are brown, who are femme, who are non-binary, who are gender-nonconforming, and who are working class.” So the government would also decide how we should treat each other and enforce that, too.
Who better to have control over every single facet of our lives than government? Right off-hand, I’d say…how about us? You know, individual Americans, making our own decisions about how to live our lives without the government ordering us what to do in excruciating detail?
As horrifying as Okere’s dream to “radically transform the way the world works” may be, we all owe him thanks for being honest. He’s not pulling the kind of bait-and-switch that snookered Venezuelans. He’s telling us right up front that “Democratic” socialism is no different from any other form of authoritarian socialist state-control: it will take away your freedom and try to dictate every facet of your life.
He further brags that his campaign “is literally making socialists, and I’m proud of that.” I would hope that after hearing him describe with such surprising candor what “Democratic” socialism really is that he would create far more Republicans and Libertarians.
Big salute for Rep. Adam Kinzinger
By Mike Huckabee
How about a big salute to Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger? He’s not only fighting to secure the border in Congress, he’s literally fighting for border security on the border…as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Wisconsin Air National Guard, currently deployed to Arizona.
Rather than complaining about having to do his duty, Kinzinger says he loves it and is proud to serve: “When drugs come into Arizona, they end up in Illinois. To protect this country from, frankly, all the drugs that are coming over, is awesome.”
In a time when far too many Congress members prefer to put on blinders and deny reality, it’s great to know that there is at least one person in Washington who has hands-on experience at protecting our borders. Now, if only his colleagues would at least visit the border and ask the people living there if they think border security is a “manufactured crisis.”
Green New Deal Cost Update
By Mike Huckabee
The American Action Forum (a think tank led by Republican Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who used to lead the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) has a new, more complete estimate of the cost of implementing the Democrats’ “Green New Deal.” The good news: the initial estimate of more than $30 trillion over ten years was wrong. The bad news: the actual cost would range between $51 and $93 trillion.
Backers of the plan responded that not implementing it will cost more. How is that even possible? The entire US gross domestic product is only around $20 trillion a year. That’s everything produced in the USA. You could take an Uber to the sun and back 250 billion times for $93 trillion, which is a more plausible plan than the Green New Deal.
Sponsoring Sen. Ed Markey claims the AAF estimate is based on “lazy assumptions.” Lazier than thinking you can get cows to stop passing gas or rebuild every structure in America or replace all planes with trains in 10 years? Someone needs to spend more time in a “think tank,” and it’s not the people from AAF.
Speaking of lazy assumptions, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s latest pearl of wisdom is that, with the environmental apocalypse just 12 years away (as she’s convinced a lot of terrified children is true; see Dianne Feinstein’s frustrating experience), people should consider not having children.
In response, Ed Driscoll at Instapundit makes the following observation:
“AOC was born in 1989, the same year that AP reported that ‘A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000,’ and the New York Times published a column by Al Gore headlined, ‘An Ecological Kristallnacht. Listen.’ Presumably, she’s glad that her parents ignored such apocalyptic scaremongering.”
Maybe we could strike a compromise: anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to make major life decisions based on the wisdom of “Democratic” socialists is free to consider not reproducing. The rest of us will decline to commit generational suicide based on the chances that UN computer climate models are correct and go on enjoying our children and grandchildren, who will live in a world without the added government oppression and tens of trillions of dollars in debt that will not exist if socialists stop reproducing.
Evening Edition - February 25
By Mike Huckabee
A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!
Daily Verse (KJV)
"And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."
– Ephesians 4:32
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.