March 5, 2018
- March 6, 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: Pelosi attacks ICE-- YouTube admits mistakes-- A big surprise-- Supreme Court to rule on political Fashion Police -- History lesson -- Additional Mike Huckabee commentaries


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


Nancy Pelosi once again proved that she perfectly represents San Francisco by blasting ICE for “indiscriminately” arresting “scores of hard-working, law-abiding immigrants” in their recent raids to enforce deportations of criminal illegal aliens. She said the Trump Administration “continues to brazenly target the cities that refuse to bow to its blatantly bigoted anti-immigrant and mass deportation agenda. The people of the San Francisco Bay Area will continue to oppose these cowardly attacks, and we will remain open to the patriotic immigrants who are the constant reinvigoration of America.”

ICE responded that they had arrested about 150 individuals, all here illegally, and about half of whom “also have criminal convictions in addition to their immigration violations, including convictions for assault/battery, crimes against children, weapons charges and DUI." If that's what Rep. Pelosi calls "law-abiding," I'd hate to meet someone whom she actually considers to be a criminal.


Mike Huckabee

Commentary continues below advertisement


YouTube admits mistakes

By Mike Huckabee

YouTube admitted that it might have made some mistakes in demonetizing, restricting or removing many conservative-leaning videos and accounts for “harmful and dangerous content.” A spokeswoman told Bloomberg that there were likely some “misapplications of rules” that resulted in targeting all those conservative sites.

I doubt that excuse will convince Prager University, Dennis Prager’s group that creates moderate, well-researched and highly informative videos on a wide range of topics from a conservative viewpoint. They kept getting banned by YouTube, went back and forth for months, were told it wasn’t a mistake, and they’re now suing YouTube and parent company Google. Maybe YouTube should have watched a few Prager U videos on free speech and how the legal system works.


I have a feeling that the real “mistake” made by YouTube was in hiring the Southern Poverty Law Center to help them identify videos by “hate groups.” That once respectable organization has morphed over the years into a money-sucking hit squad that brands any group that disagrees with its “progressive” politics as a hate group. According to the SPLC, the Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group, Ben Carson is a racist, female Muslim reform activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an Islamophobe and feminist scholar Christina Hoff Sommers is a male supremacist. The SPLC would be a joke, except it’s not funny. If YouTube doesn't want to be influenced by biased and uninformed hate groups, then the first step they should take is severing ties with the SPLC.


A big surprise

By Mike Huckabee

Today’s Must-Read: A Hillary Clinton campaign staffer attended the conservative convention CPAC, expecting to encounter angry, bitter, violent, close-minded “deplorables” and fearing she might not get out alive. Reality: she met a lot of very nice, intelligent people who welcomed her with open arms, introduced her all around, had discussions with her about gun control and education policy, and invited her to their parties. She found herself singing along to “God Bless the USA” and nodding in agreement occasionally to Ben Shapiro’s speech (now we know why Antifa is so terrified of letting Ben speak on college campuses). She couldn’t help wondering how a Trump supporter in a MAGA cap would have been greeted at a Democratic rally (I could point some out to her who could show her their medical bills). She left determined to work harder to burst media bubbles.

Let’s hope she can help break down some of the partisan stereotypes and animosity on the left, which is the worst I’ve ever seen it (admittedly, it’s pretty thick among some on the right, too). Social media has made it easier than ever to surround yourself only with people who think exactly like you, and that also makes it easier to assume the absolute worst about everyone outside the bubble.

I don’t believe that people are defined solely by their political beliefs, and I think we have more in common than we do things that separate us. That’s why I accept invitations to come on shows like “The Daily Show,” “Real Time with Bill Maher” and “The View.” We may be diametrically opposed in our political views, but how can I ever hope to win anyone over if I refuse to talk to them?

By the way, I have an open invitation for prominent liberals to be guests on my TBN TV show. I even guarantee they’ll enjoy a warm welcome and a polite, civil conversation. I’ll let you know if any of them ever take me up on it.



Supreme Court to rule on political Fashion Police

By Mike Huckabee

Should the Fashion Police have the power to control what voters wear to polling places? That’s what the Supreme Court will determine after hearing arguments Wednesday in the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Joe Mansky, which challenges a state law against wearing “politically-charged” clothing or accessories to the polls. Nine other states have similar laws.

It all started when Andrew Cilek, founder and executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, went to the polls wearing a shirt with a picture of the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”) and a small Tea Party logo, plus a button that featured the phone number and website address of Election Integrity Watch. He was stopped in his tracks and forced to cover up before he could vote. So, is this law a necessary provision to stop blatant electioneering as people are casting their votes, or it is a violation of Andrew Cilek’s free speech rights?



Commentary continues below advertisement


History lesson

By Mike Huckabee

Interesting history lesson: I wonder how many Trump-hating New Yorkers who are paying a month’s rent for “Hamilton” tickets realize that the hero of that hip-hop musical would have been outraged at liberal judges overreaching their very limited powers to block the President’s immigration and national security measures.



Additional Commentaries

Hate wins

Chicago's example

Broward County, Florida: another swamp that needs draining

Monica Lewinsky, 20 years later

Florida bombshell: Armed deputy cowered outside school during shooting

Memo to Jeff Sessions

Canada revives "death panels"

The scandal runs as deep as in 1972 (UPDATED)

Mueller ups pressure on Manafort and Gates to cut a deal

ICE needs to keep it up, not pull back

My tribute to Billy Graham

Media narrative on "Russia" indictment is wrong

Is America the only place?

CIA argues it shouldn't have to comply

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

Commentary continues below advertisement

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

No Comments