Latest News

August 13, 2023



Blessings on you and your family from all the Huckabee team! Thank you for subscribing!

With gratitude,

Mike Huckabee


But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:8


Reader asks about rule "disqualifying" Weiss

From Nancy S. on Substack:

So if Weiss is not qualified or eligible to be special counsel, how can he be? Where are the checks and balances? It seems we hear too often that ‘this isn’t legal’ or ‘against the law’. And where do all these judges come from that can stop something from going forward? I’m so confused!!!

Staff writer Laura Ainsworth writes:

The closest I can find to precedent for this is John Durham's appointment. He was the U.S. attorney for Connecticut at the time he was named as special counsel on the origins of Crossfire Hurricane (the Russia Hoax), but he did resign that position so as not to violate the letter of this rule. In contrast, according to what Garland said Friday, Weiss will continue to serve as U.S. attorney WHILE being special counsel. (Aside from that, there's also the slight problem of him being appointed to investigate the younger Biden at the behest of someone who was appointed by the elder Biden.)

Unlike with laws that are passed by Congress, there don't seem to be any teeth to this regulation at all. One analyst said, "the AG is not subject to being disciplined for ignoring a regulation that he could set aside if he wanted to...and the regulations provide there is no right created in anyone to force compliance --- in a court or otherwise --- with this regulation in the event it is violated." So apparently Garland can violate the rule any time he wants to, and as far as we know, no one can do anything about it.

So, to answer your question, there appear to be NO "checks and balances" on this rule. My question now would be, what's the point in even having the rule, then?  It's just another "norm" to be trashed.  One more guiding principle out the window.  The left seem to have no guiding principles except those that they can use to have their way.

“Huckabee” Preview

Come in from the heat tonight for a cool new episode of “Huckabee” on TBN! I’ll talk to former Kansas Governor and Senator Sam Brownback, now with the National Committee for Religious Freedom, and Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire and “The Michael Knowles Show.” Beyond news and politics, I’ll welcome former Miss USA and talk show host Ali Landry, hilarious comedian Dave Dugan, and conservative writer and rising country music star Alexis Wilkins.

The fun starts tonight at 9 EST/8 CST on TBN. To find out how to watch TBN, from local cable and broadcast channels to streaming, visit and click on “Channel Finder” on the top menu. You can stream previous episodes, highlights and online-only “Digital Exclusives,” including extended interviews, “In Case You Missed It” and “Facts of the Matter” segments, plus extra performances by our great musical and comedy guests and links to all their sites, at You can also find past shows, highlights and digital exclusives on YouTube and my Facebook page.

Continued Prayers

Please continue to pray for the people of Hawaii, where the death toll from the wildfires on Maui has reached at least 80 with many still unaccounted for. The fires are reportedly 85% contained as of Friday night, but the devastation is widespread. If you can help financially, a donation to Samaritan’s Purse will ensure that your gift will reach the victims quickly and most efficiently. They are already partnering with local churches and emergency management to help those in need. You can learn more and donate here:

First ruling

The first ruling by Judge Tanya Chutkin in Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for running for President…oops, sorry: for whatever it is he allegedly did to challenge the 2020 election… wasn’t the partisan slamdunk for Smith that many expected.

Despite her reputation as a Democrat donor and harsh partisan, Chutkin said she wouldn’t be influenced by politics in handling the case and rejected Smith’s attempt to take away Trump’s First Amendment right to talk about the case. However, she did limit what Trump could say on social media, warning that he could not reveal “sensitive” evidence like witness testimony or discuss witnesses, which could amount to witness intimidation.

Whether this signals a sincere effort at impartial professionalism or just an attempt to create the appearance of it to cover for another kangaroo court proceeding against Trump remains to be seen.

Of course, a fully nonpartisan judge would probably throw all these bogus charges out entirely, considering Smith has tipped his hand about his real intentions (election interference) by asking for a trial date that coincides with the beginning of the primary campaign season.

Help Needed: Read Mike's Message

Government and Big Tech working together to censor conservative views, is a big reason why we changed things up and moved my newsletter to Substack.

Because you are a free subscriber to my newsletter, I would like you to consider subscribing to the paid version on Substack.

A Substack subscription-based newsletter allows my team and I to focus on what matters: the writing and the research we do to back up the writing, instead of worrying about censorship, or what Google is saying about me, how they are handling advertising on our website or whether or not my work shows up when you search for it.

To keep the newsletter going, we have setup a monthly goal of identifying 600 new paying subscribers for the month of August and we have 415 to go.

If you can afford to do so, please subscribe here:

Subscribe now >>>

To become a paid subscriber of my politics newsletter it is $5 monthly or $36 annually. I email daily and my politics newsletters usually take 10-15 minutes to read. I cover the news of the day and the liberal media. I write about the upcoming elections and dive deep on the Biden scandals. I will also share my opinion of the Trump indictment. I don’t think you will regret reading my newsletter regularly, so please consider subscribing today.


Mike Huckabee

AOC thinks she knows more about the law than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas…

Rep. Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez – who, of course, knows more about laws governing the Supreme Court than Justice Clarence Thomas does – sent a letter to the Biden DOJ demanding an ethics investigation of Thomas. She accuses him of taking improper gifts, like dresses, jewelry and free tickets to the Met Gala…no, wait: that was her. Here’s her ode to hypocrisy based on a slanted hit piece by a leftwing media outlet, and Thomas’ response.

AOC Sends DOJ a Letter Demanding Investigation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – PJ Media

What is with the Democrats’ fixation on trying to destroy a powerful, accomplished and successful black man? There are nine Justices on the Supreme Court, five of them conservatives, but all their attacks are aimed at the black guy. Don’t they have a word for that?

ZERO coverage

Here’s another Biden story that I bet will get zero coverage on CNN and MSNBC.

California stupidity

California’s politicians have a plan for dealing with the huge power shortages their previous plans have caused:

1. Force everyone to buy electric cars.

2. When there’s the threat of a blackout (probably because of everyone having to charge their electric cars), drain the power out of everyone’s electric car batteries and back into the grid.

It’s like a perpetual motion machine of stupidity!

A new standard

I always say that liberals need euphemisms because if they told us straight out what they believe, any decent or intelligent person would reject it. That’s how giving permanently disfiguring chemicals and surgery to confused minors became “gender-affirming care” and “killing babies in the womb up to the moment of birth” became “reproductive rights.”

(Think I’m exaggerating? Ohio voters having rejected making it harder to amend the state constitution, the state Supreme Court just okayed putting an amendment on the ballot to remove all limits on abortion, making abortion up to the moment of birth a constitutional right and forcing taxpayers to pay for it.)

But here’s a euphemism that may set a new standard for ridiculousness. Cromwell Hospital in London wants to be “inclusive” and not offend any delusional people by using a divisive term like “women.” So instead, their forms ask people if they are a “patient of childbearing potential.”

Of course, once a hospital prioritizes indulging delusions over medical science, there’s no end to it. So I’m sure the trans activists will complain that this term excludes men, whom we all know can now menstruate and “get pregnant, too!” More realistically, it also implies that post-menopausal women aren’t women.

Lincoln Brown at PJ Media had some fun taking this nonsense to the next level. Among his several suggested new euphemisms are referring to men as “people of jar-opening potential” and dogs as “animals of barking potential.” I’d call these hospital administrators “people of barking mad potential.”

Woody is sooooo scary

Hollywood liberals savagely turned on one of their own for daring to exhibit just enough independent thought to endorse a different liberal than the one the leftist orthodoxy demands they endorse. With the SAG strike dragging on, don't you miss seeing these people dispensing their political wisdom on talk shows?

GET THE BOOK: The Three Cs That Made America Great sounds a needed alarm to Christians and conservatives to answer the call to action and push back against the forces that desire to move America from its heritage and founding principles.

BUY IT HERE: The Three Cs That Made America Great: Christianity, Capitalism and the Constitution - Mike Huckabee

In a 4-3 ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the deep blue state’s “assault weapons” ban. This is likely to be overturned by the US Supreme Court, but I’m linking to this story by Ward Clark at because it illustrates a point I've been making for over a decade: the people who want to ban so-called “assault weapons” can’t even identify what they are.

The story contains a list of features that, under the law, qualify a weapon as a banned “assault weapon.” But as Clark points out, they’re purely cosmetic: “none of these features have any effect on the power or lethality of a firearm.” He even cites a weapon that’s arguably more lethal but not banned because it doesn’t meet the cosmetic criteria.

But then, why expect that the Democrats who wrote this bill would know anything about guns, considering it’s called the “Protect Our Communities Act” but all it would do is take firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens in places like Chicago so they can’t protect themselves from the criminals who have illegal weapons?

John King is shocked!

When I wrote my book “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy” about the widening disconnect between media and political elites and working Americans, I hoped it might goad the former into actually talking to the latter. Well, it finally happened, but it didn’t work out as I’d hoped.

CNN sent “reporter” John King to talk to some Iowa Republicans, and he was shocked – shocked! – to discover that they think like Iowa Republicans. For instance, they have reverence for Ronald Reagan, support Trump and think he’s being targeted by a corrupt DOJ, don’t trust the government or CNN, and don’t approve of sending endless billions and all our ammunition to Ukraine. The horrified King thinks this is the result of them being in “thrall” to Trump and being “conspiracy theorists” who “consume conservative media who don’t tell them the whole truth.”

Not like CNN, which spent years flogging the phony Trump-Russian collusion hoax. And bought the lie that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation. And that is still pretending not to notice the stench of corruption from the Biden influence peddling family business. Sorry, John, but nobody with a brain needs Trump to tell them what they’re seeing with their own eyes and smelling with their own noses.

King lamented, “They’re good people…They go to Church! But they believe things that would break our fact-check machine. And they don’t trust us! They think we’re part of the problem!”

News flash: You are. And breaking your “fact-check machine,” that thing that rates truth by how closely it hews to DNC talking points, would actually be a good first step to reclaiming the credibility you long ago flushed down the toilet.

Related: Instapundit reminds us of just a few reasons why Americans don’t trust CNN and are correct not to do so:

Important Reminder

Important Reminder: While the Biden DOJ’s attempt to railroad a pro-life activist into prison for 11 years was thwarted by a jury, they’re not giving up. They have a whole slate of pro-life activists whom they’re still trying to imprison for years for exercising their First Amendment rights. Here are the details:

Meanwhile, actual terrorists who have threatened and firebombed pro-life pregnancy centers are still walking around free because identifying, arresting and prosecuting them would require real law enforcement work.


Thank you for reading my newsletter. 

For more news, visit my website.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-4 of 4

  • mary c konesky

    08/13/2023 09:24 PM

    thank you

  • Stephen Russell

    08/13/2023 04:40 PM

    To rebuild Lahina:
    New weather sensors
    ID cane burn season
    Prefab modular bldgs used, fireproof
    Weather Radar
    New alerts
    New signals
    Build some offshore; see
    Add New hotels. hostels
    Renovate yacht harbor
    Updated phone system
    Energy storage
    Back up generators
    Use tides for power

  • William Fuhrer

    08/13/2023 04:02 PM


  • George Curl

    08/13/2023 03:21 PM

    AOC just wants attention. If she gets called out because of her gifts she just screams and rants about "they" are out to get her. IMHO there should be an 8th grafe civics test all candidates running for any Congressional office, including but not limited to Congress. Federal judges, POTUS, and VPOTUS. Cabinmate members should be tested on their knowledge of the post appointed.