Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff! Today's newsletter includes:
- Primary Election Day
- 2,000 MULES most successful political doc in DECADE
- Female judge strikes down overreaching California law
- And much more.
1. DAILY BIBLE VERSE
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
2. Primary Election Day
Today is Primary Election Day in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kentucky, Idaho, and Oregon. The most-watched race is the Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary, when the power of former President Trump’s endorsement is getting tested by his choice of TV doctor Mehmet Oz. Dr. Oz is facing strong competition from surging conservative Kathy Barnette and Gulf War vet and my choice, former Bush Treasury official Dave McCormick, who’s seen by party insiders as the most electable choice in a purple state, where holding onto that seat is vital to Republicans winning back the Senate.
If you’re in one of those states, be sure to vote. I’ll have a round-up of the results tomorrow.
My political organization, Huck PAC, has endorsed:
Cliff Bentz for U.S. House (OR-2)
Mike Crapo for U.S. Senate (ID)
Russ Fulcher for U.S. House (ID-1)
Mike Simpson for U.S. House (ID-2)
Mark Walker for U.S. Senate (NC)
Gregory Murphy for U.S. House (NC-3)
Virginia Foxx for U.S. House (NC-5)
David Rouzer for U.S. House (NC-7)
Dan Bishop for U.S. House (NC-8)
Richard Hudson for U.S. House (NC-9)
Patrick T. McHenry for U.S. House (NC-10)
Rand Paul for U.S. Senate (KY)
James Comer for U.S. House (KY-1)
Brett Guthrie for U.S. House (KY-2)
Thomas Massie for U.S. House (KY-4)
Harold Rogers for U.S. House (KY-5)
Andy Barr for U.S. House (KY-6)
Dave McCormick for U.S. Senate (PA)
For more on Huck PAC and the endorsements we have made so far, go here: https://www.huckpac.com/
3. 2,000 MULES most successful political doc in DECADE
Over the weekend, FOX News continued its streak of not discussing the new documentary about election fraud, 2,000 MULES. I know we’re not supposed to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, but somebody back there pulling the levers is doing his darnedest to keep you from hearing about it, anywhere on TV. Incredibly, even the outspoken Dan Bongino did not mention it on his weekend show UNFILTERED, and that must have taken some doing. See no fraud, hear no fraud, speak no fraud.
In spite of this, I’m happy to say that the eye-opening documentary film from Dinesh D’Souza and True The Vote has done blockbuster business for a political documentary. It’s the most successful film of that genre since D’Souza’s OBAMA’S AMERICA, released a decade ago. It’s also been a huge boost for alternative social media platforms Rumble and Locals, which, of course, didn’t exist a decade ago.
Despite the shameful mainstream (and major conservative) media blackout, 2,000 MULES is becoming not just a financial success but also a cultural influence, according to D’Souza. “It’s the most talked-about movie out there,” he said, “making headlines in multiple publications, and is trending extremely high on social media.”
Of course, some of those headlines are for attempts to debunk the film. We’ve discussed those here and also pointed to other articles that derail the so-called “fact”-checks point by point.
Assaf Lev, president of Locals, said, “Supporting creative independence is core to our values, and we are thrilled to offer creators a new way to distribute and sell movies independently.”
How great to discover there are ways around the attempts to silence free speech, and that the audience has been starving for courageous, independent points of view. Enterprising filmmakers will be heartened to know their work has some popular and growing outlets, regardless of whether they're approved by Twitter, Facebook and the White House.
4. AINSWORTH: HOW the left shuts down talk of election fraud
by Laura Ainsworth, staff writer
Why is standing firm on what we know to be true so important? For the answer, I’d like to segue from our discussion of 2,000 MULES to this magnificent article by Michael Anton –- author and research fellow at Hillsdale College –- about the psychological techniques being used by the left to shut us down. If you’ve ever looked at a training manual for Critical Race Theory (or related course –- I have) and wondered how they get away with spreading such garbage, Anton’s piece provides an analysis.
Since we’re on the subject of 2,000 MULES, I thought it would be a good idea to take the points in Anton’s “Quick and Dirty Guide to Regime Propaganda” and explain, one by one, how these techniques are used to silence mention of election fraud. (You won’t be tested on the names of these techniques.)
1. THE LAW OF MERITED IMPOSSIBILITY. This is when leftists tell you, “Oh, what you’re worried about will NEVER happen,” and then when it does, tell you, “it will be for the best and you deserve it, anyway.” One example of this, to counter the right’s “slippery slope” concerns, might be, “Oh, just because men are able to self-identify as women, that doesn’t mean they’ll be exposing themselves in locker rooms! Goodness, that will NEVER happen.” And then, when it does, they say, “Now it’s the way it should be, and if you have a problem, deal with it because you’re homophobic.”
As I apply this to election fraud, it might start out with them saying, “Mail-in balloting will NEVER lead to fraud big enough to change elections!” Then, when you suspect it has, they say, “Hey, the important thing is to make every vote count and not disenfranchise any racial group, you racist.”
2. THE CELEBRATION PARALLAX. This is when the left cares only about the assumed intent of the speaker in deciding whether words are acceptable or not. For example, if you celebrate a particular point of view --- and you do have to celebrate it, loudly and proudly, not just tolerate it --- you can say, “Illegal immigration is transforming America demographically,” and that’s just fine, because you’re thrilled about it. But if you’re not thrilled, even just neutral, you’ll be called a racist for even bringing it up.
As I apply this to election fraud, your statement might be, “Those drop boxes are placed in Democrat strongholds in battleground states.” If you actively cheer the idea of mobilizing particular demographic groups, the left will say, “Right, because the people who live there have been historically marginalized and we have to do whatever we can to help their votes make a difference!” But if you don’t cheer this, or (worse) think it smacks of manipulation or even cheating, the same statement will be greeted by the left with some version of, “Not true; this is only to help marginalized people vote, and you’re a racist for suggesting it’s partisan.” I can hear Mark Elias saying that, can’t you?
Another example: Someone says, “It’s wrong to question the outcome of an election.” To a leftist, if this is said in reference to the 2020 election, it’s true, because Trump lost. But if it’s about 2016, it’s false, because Trump won. It’s all in the intent. Zero points for consistency.
3. THE LAW OF SALUTORY CONTRADICTION. (Like #1, but about the present instead of the future.) This is when the left essentially says, “That’s not happening and it’s good that it is.” Anton’s example: “Is the Biden administration putting illegal immigrants on planes and shipping them to the heartland? Absolutely not...and those future Nobel Prize winners deserve their shot at the American Dream!”
As I apply this to election fraud, it might go, “Did the left harvest votes in places that might swing the election away from Trump? Absolutely not...and our nation couldn’t have stood another four years of Trump!”
4. THE SMAILS EXHORTATION. That means any “democratic” outcome that conservatives want is automatically illegitimate, racist and fascist. Border wall? Racist and fascist! Law and order? Racist and fascist! Girls-only bathrooms? Transphobic! You’re just bad and don’t deserve to have it the way you want. As Anton puts it, “No matter is too small, too local, too private, or too inconsequential to escape their gaze and slip their punishment. Bake the cake, bigot.”
As I apply this to election fraud, this might go, “Too bad, red states. By whatever means necessary, we’re going to control enough states so that you will be powerless. You’re a bunch of racist ultra-MAGA people and don’t deserve power.”
5. THE LIE-BACK IMPERATIVE. This is a refinement of #4, to keep from unduly alarming and rousing conservatives and keep the frog in the pot of water as it comes to a boil. When they punch us, we grow conditioned to think of it –- and even acknowledge it –- as a massage. I see this as Advanced Brainwashing 201.
Example: When the left says, “You’re in this class because all white people have inherent racism, including you,” there’s pressure for you to reflexively respond, “Thank you for helping me see my inherent bias.” You become “the housebroken Right.” The goal: your self-censorship.
As I apply this to election fraud: They say, “You can’t discuss 2,000 MULES on your show because we don’t know if it’s true and, besides, we might get sued.” You feel the pressure and say, “Thanks for clarifying…...whatever you say, FOX News.”
6. THE ENMITY COUNTERACCUSATION. If you don’t respond as compliantly to their rhetoric as in #5, the left will have to “circle back” and smack you again. As in, “You don’t appreciate it when we call you evil because of your race? You are so divisive!”
Related point: if you warn that the left’s strategies will result in something bad, such as civil war, they’ll say, “Oh, so you want civil war! You domestic terrorist!”
I didn’t say this was logical.
As I apply this to election fraud: You say, “These changes to the election system will destroy faith in our democracy!” They say, “You can’t say that! You’re trying to destroy faith in our democracy! You insurrectionist!”
All of this is designed to twist your thinking and get you to say 2+2=5. Anton warns that the left hates conservatives and wants us canceled and ostracized, or at least obedient. The techniques he describes remind me of Stalinist Russia and also of Orwell’s 1984, which was, of course, inspired by Stalinist Russia.. Anton advises that to deal with the gaslighting, we must be able to think clearly, and that’s why he wrote this breakdown of their strategies as he sees them. I hope my specific application of them to the issue of election fraud is helpful, too.
Postscript: Victor Davis Hanson has some excellent columns warning of the societal changes the left is working tirelessly to bring about. Here’s a menu of recent selections, all highly recommended…
5. Entering Day 2 of the Sussmann trial
Day 1 of the Michael Sussmann trial was devoted to jury selection, and in Washington, DC, the concern is that it’s virtually impossible to assemble a jury that’s not biased against Trump. Reportedly, there were members of the jury pool who were dismissed because they said they had such negative feelings towards Trump that they’d be unable to be objective. If that’s the case, their honesty is to be applauded.
But we also heard news reports that at least a couple of people who admitted to being very anti-Trump were selected as jurors anyway. The difference must be that they said under oath that they believe they can be objective. Hope they’re right about themselves.
On Monday, speaking with Jesse Watters on FOX News, Mollie Hemingway put this concern about the jury in perspective, saying that the purpose of having a special counsel investigation was to uncover the story of the Russia Hoax, and regardless of whether or not Sussmann is convicted on this one count of lying, that has been accomplished. She’s right; through John Durham’s court filings, we know there really was a “joint venture” involving Hillary For America, the DNC, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, the Brookings Institution, the FBI, Rodney Joffe, his team at Georgia Tech, and others. They all shared a “common interest,” which was to defeat Trump and elect Hillary.
In previewing the evidence that he was trying to get admitted in court, Durham essentially drew a map with all roads leading back to Hillary. And we know that the whole blasted story they pushed –- saying Donald Trump was an agent of Vladimir Putin –- was a monstrous lie, a fraud perpetrated on millions of people, millions of VOTERS. Some actually still believe it, as ridiculous as it is to anyone who is not an idiot.
The charge against Sussmann, though certainly warranted and supported by the evidence, represents something much larger, as it has also offered Durham a vehicle to get more of the story out. Yes, this Obama-appointed judge, D.C. District Judge Christopher Cooper, has ruled to keep the “joint venture” communications away from the jury with dubious rulings on “attorney-client privilege,” but he can’t keep them away from the American public. And he can’t keep them out of Durham’s final report.
Margot Cleveland has a new piece about the trial; it ran Monday as jury selection was getting underway.
The attorney-client privilege argument cuts both ways. As Cleveland points out, when then-Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago refuses to answer on the stand because of Judge Cooper’s ruling that the testimony is “privileged,” (when she’s a “techie” who isn’t actually part of the legal conversation by any stretch), it will just drive home that Sussmann really WAS the attorney for Hillary’s henchmen, and that he was paid to do her dirty work.
On Tuesday, Durham intends to call Georgia Tech researcher Dave Dagon, who was given immunity from prosecution last summer. From Cleveland’s description of his role in the scheme, it appears his testimony is expected to create a timeline and to tie the players together in creating and pushing the Alfa Bank and Yotaphone hoaxes.
Cleveland didn’t mention it, but also on the witness stand, as early as Tuesday, will be none other than Marc Elias, general counsel for the 2016 Clinton campaign and the man most responsible for making election fraud in America easy and profitable (though that is a separate issue). It’s really too bad we don’t have cameras in federal court, especially when you think of the testimony we CAN watch, and I refer specifically to the Depp v. Heard civil trial. I’d gladly take a pass on that (which I already have) to watch Durham at work.
Anyway, first on the stand Tuesday will be FBI agent David Martin, who will be “an expert witness on computer matters,” according to the New York Post.
He’ll also testify about the significance of Sussmann’s lie relative to how it might have affected the FBI’s decision-making. The defense, understandably, has tried to bar that testimony, on grounds that seemed from reading the NYP story to be amusingly vague.
But the most encouraging news comes from Cleveland. Which is to say, as the trial goes on –- it will likely last about two weeks –- she expects a lot more to come out in court in the prosecution of Sussmann that will connect Hillary Clinton herself to Spygate. “The real loser...will be Hillary Clinton,” she says.
6. Female judge strikes down overreaching California law
A judge in Los Angeles struck down as unconstitutional California’s recent law requiring a certain number of women to be on the boards of publicly-owned companies. Like so many laws passed by liberals, it attempted to fight discrimination by overreaching the government’s powers and imposing discrimination. And before the howling about the patriarchy starts, please note that it was a female judge.
One interesting aspect to this story is that even before the state legislature passed it, an analysis by their own legal experts warned that it would “likely be challenged on equal protection grounds.” They passed it anyway. As he was signing the bill, former Gov. Jerry Brown said there were “serious legal concerns” about it. But he signed it anyway.
Yet after it was struck down, the bill’s co-author, Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, said the ruling was “disappointing,” and that “More women on corporate boards means better decisions and businesses that outperform the competition – that’s a studied, proven fact. We believe this law remains important – despite the disheartening ruling from the Los Angeles Superior Court – and it exemplifies equal access and opportunity, the very bedrock of our democracy.”
Okay, three things: it doesn’t exemplify equal access and opportunity, it VIOLATES that principle by requiring the hiring of people based solely on gender rather than qualifications. Thinking something is good doesn’t give politicians the power or authority to order companies to do it, particularly when it violates the law and the Constitution. And the ruling to strike it down shouldn’t be described as “disappointing” or “disheartening.” I think the more accurate term is “utterly predictable.”
7. Substack readership grows
The Substack newsletter combines my morning and evening editions into one morning email AND best of all the email is ADVERTISEMENT FREE.
Join the thousands of subscribers who have signed on to pay $5 monthly or $36 annually (a $24 savings if you subscribe at the annual price!):
Once you subscribe to the Substack version, you will receive your first newsletter from me the very next day. If you already subscribe to the other versions of the newsletter, we will unsubscribe you from them so you get less email! You will still receive your Daily Bible Verse!
So please consider my Substack newsletter, and sign up here if you are interested:
I Just Wanted to Say
Thank you for reading my newsletter.