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 --- -- Remembering Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. -- Hate destroys the hater and the hated -- About that "Green New Deal" -- "Full disclosure" to interested reader re: the hiring of Fusion GPS -- This Time It’s Personal: -- Terrorism is back -- AOC: Primary Democrats -- Time for SCOTUS to face facts -- Evening Edition -- Daily Verse
The late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was born on January 15, 1929, but today is the day we officially celebrate his birthday and his legacy. Sadly, today we see a lot of people trying to usurp and distort his legacy for their own ends. Just this weekend, I saw an article using his late career call for a universal basic wage to argue that if he were alive today, he’d be joining the radicals pushing to turn America socialist. I’ve also seen cartoon memes showing the Rev. King attacking or putting his hands over the mouth of President Trump. Things like this are demeaning and disrespectful, but worse, they pervert everything that this great man stood for in his lifetime.
I am old enough to have lived through that era, in the South. I saw the evils of racism firsthand, and I was greatly inspired by the Rev. King’s example to do everything I could to oppose it. I think that some of the greatest and most inspirational words ever spoken were these, from his famous “I Have A Dream” speech:
“I have a dream that one day, right down in Georgia and Mississippi and Alabama, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to live together as brothers…I have a dream…that my four little children will not come up in the same young days that I came up within, but they will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin.”
Today, many of the same people who seek to use his image and reputation to further their agendas are doing everything they can to destroy his dream of a colorblind America. They want to impose the dogma of “intersectionality,” charting each person on a graph of race and gender, assigning a relative position of “oppressor” and “oppressed” based entirely on identity groups, not the content of the individuals’ characters. This is a sick and divisive pursuit, and the very opposite of what Rev. King preached.
Hate destroys the hater and the hated
By Mike Huckabee
In my comments on Martin Luther King Day, I quoted him on how letting yourself hate those you disagree with eats away at you like acid and destroys the hater as well as the hated. Saturday was the second annual “Women’s March,” and it’s obvious that the hatred is taking its toll. The revelations about the hateful anti-Semitism of the Women’s March organizers has driven away so many sponsors and supporters that attendance at the Washington march was way down (from 500,000 in 2017 to at most 100,000 – although that’s from friendly sources and I suspect it was far lower.)
Some are trying to blame it on the cold weather or the government shutdown, but that didn’t stop people from turning out for the March For Life the day before. But beyond the anti-Semitic hatred at the top, many rank-and-file members are also intent on making clear that their motivations are also hatred and anger, even to the point that they fill their protest signs with vile, profane, hateful language and proudly wave them in public for children to see.
They apparently were not appalled that a newly-elected Representative claimed to have used the filthiest term in the language about the President in front of her small son, but were so inspired by it that they wanted to repeat it in front of the whole world. Personally, I don’t see how advertising that you are foul-mouthed, hate-filled and have no respect for those around you wins friends and influences people. If this is the best they can do, then I expect next year’s Women’s March (if there even is one) could be held in a 7-11 parking lot.
At the link are some photos taken at the DC Women’s March by blogger Jim Bovard. Before clicking, please be warned: their placards contain very offensive language that you might not want to see and that you certainly don’t want your children to see. And again: they were proudly waving these in the streets, in front of cameras, and in the faces of children.
About that "Green New Deal"
By Mike Huckabee
Here’s something to make you feel more comfortable about Democratic control of government: the “Green New Deal” plan that would crush the economy, bloat the government to unheard-of new levels, raise the top tax rate to 70% and turn America into a socialist “Utopia” was pasted together over a weekend by some Millennials and environmental activists who had to Google “How to write a law” while pulling an all-nighter.
Why, yes: that’s exactly how I assumed it was written.
"Full disclosure" to interested reader re: the hiring of Fusion GPS
By Mike Huckabee
Just as a reminder to our readers, when even the most long-established news outlets are loaded with “fake news,” we are doing our best here to deal with reality. I hope you find it refreshing that we’re trying hard to get at the truth, even if it doesn’t always turn out to be what we’d hope it would be.
That’s why I’m sharing the following letter, which, if I read it correctly, seems to be accusing me of partisan spin where none exists. I certainly try not to shade the truth and certainly haven't done that in the case of Fusion GPS and the Steele “dossier.” Readers, if you ever think I’m failing to exercise “full disclosure,” let me know –- tactfully, as William has –- and we’ll talk it out. Thanks.
From William T:
Why don’t you mention, when referring to ’the dossier,’ that Fusion GPS was initially hired by other Republican presidential candidates to do ‘opposition research’ on Donald Trump? Isn’t that the kind of full disclosure you are seeking from others?
This Time It’s Personal:
By Mike Huckabee
Why have so many Democrats who voted to fund a border wall or fence for years, and who even made speeches on the dangers of illegal immigration, suddenly done a 180? What is the real reason that they're willing to shut down their beloved federal government rather than provide a fraction as much money for a border barrier as they backed in previous years?
The CATO Institute did a study and found something intriguing: Democratic support for a border barrier was pretty strong and constant right up until mid-2015, when it suddenly plummeted from 44% to 11%. Take a look at this chart and see if you can guess the exact point at which Donald Trump entered the presidential race and embraced the building of a border wall.
Terrorism is back
By Mike Huckabee
Terrorism is suddenly back on the front burner, with the tragic news yesterday of a bomb blast at a restaurant in Manbij, Syria, that killed 15 people, including four Americans: two contractors and two military members. ISIS took credit for the suicide attack.
First and foremost, we should all pray for the victims and for their families. The loss of human life and the pain of the survivors tends to get lost in the rush to make political arguments, but it is the most important part of this story. We extend our deepest condolences to the families, and we pray for the souls of the victims and for comfort for those they leave behind who’ve had their loved ones torn from them in a brutal and senseless attack.
Some Congressional Republicans immediately called on President Trump to reverse his decision to withdraw troops from Syria in light of the attack. This puts me in a unique position: I am already on record from day one as questioning the wisdom of withdrawing, not only because it might create a vacuum for ISIS to fill, but because it might mean abandoning our staunch allies, the Kurds, and the endangered Syrian Christian population to Syria, Turkey and Iran. Yet I don’t believe this type of terrorist attack is a justification for reversing the withdrawal.
Trump is withdrawing the troops because the mission of crushing ISIS’ dream of a caliphate is complete. They had been expanding their territory at an alarming rate under Obama; killing, raping and enslaving countless people and seizing oil fields and other riches that could be used to fund weapons purchases and more jihad and recruitment. The fact that they are once again reduced to launching lone suicide attacks on innocent people in restaurants isn’t a signal that they’re a rising danger so much as they have been reduced back to the level of the cowardly, shadowy terrorist losers they started out as.
If that’s their status, then it’s not an argument for keeping a large military force in Syria. Troops were needed to force them off their seized territory. They obviously no longer have a state to bomb them off of. Fighting these types of terrorist sneak attacks is the work of intelligence agencies, not soldiers, who would just provide a target for such attacks, as happened Wednesday.
Ironically, a good example of that came on the very same day, when the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force announced the arrest of 21-year-old Hasher Jallal Taheb of Cumming, Georgia. He allegedly planned to attack the White House, Statue of Liberty and other targets as part of his jihad, then to flee to ISIS territory. He was reportedly arrested while trying to trade his vehicle for explosives.
But the FBI said there was no danger: he had been under control since the beginning. They got a tip from a resident that he’d been radicalized, and a person he was dealing with was an FBI informant. This is how you prevent lone wolf radical attacks and discourage others from trying them.
So to sum up: I’m still highly skeptical of withdrawing troops from Syria. But it’s because of what might happen on a larger scale involving state actors who also have troops. We shouldn’t let the potential for suicide attacks by one crazed jihadist determine where we place troops because we don’t have enough troops to station them anywhere and everywhere in the world.
AOC: Primary Democrats
By Mike Huckabee
This is why Rep. Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez is calling on fringe-left radicals to launch primary challenges on Democratic incumbents: there are still a few left in office who have some common sense. One of them is the new chair of the House Homeland Security Committee which oversees ICE. He made it clear that as long as he’s running it, no bills to abolish ICE will be brought to a vote. That will save the Senate the trouble of having to kill them.
Time for SCOTUS to face facts
By Mike Huckabee
I’m not sure why so many liberals are hysterical over the idea of a conservative Supreme Court, since they seem to think that only SCOTUS rulings that are in their favor need to be obeyed.
I told you last week about the Colorado Christian cake designer who won his Supreme Court case, yet is back in court again because he’s still being targeted by the state for refusing to violate his religious beliefs. And here’s another case of déjà vu all over again: one of the most ignominious examples of government bullying during the Obama years is back, with Northern California-based, Obama-appointed Judge Haywood Gilliam once again ordering the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns, to pay for employees’ birth control, including drugs and devices that induce abortions.
A second lawsuit, involving Pennsylvania, hasn’t been ruled on yet. At least the judge in that case asked the plaintiff why it was wrong for Trump to issue a rule exempting the nuns, but it wasn’t wrong for Obama to issue the rules in the first place. She didn’t get a coherent answer, probably because they couldn’t say, “Because we refuse to recognize the results of the 2016 election!”
You might be thinking, “Wait, didn’t the Supreme Court toss out this abomination already?” Yes, in 2016. It was one of the issues that led Christian voters to support Donald Trump, who issued new regulations exempting non-church religious organizations from the Obamacare mandate to provide birth control and abortifacient drugs under their insurance plans. But pro-abortion Attorneys General in California and Pennsylvania went back to court to try to block those regulations. This Obama judge sided with California, in a ruling that would apply to 13 states and DC, despite the SCOTUS already ruling in the nuns’ favor on the issue (note to Chief Justice Roberts: this is what people are talking about when they complain about activist Obama judges.)
The plaintiffs claim that not forcing nuns to pay for abortions and birth control is depriving women of “health care,” even though such drugs are readily available elsewhere and can be paid for through other channels without having to force devoutly religious nuns to fund what they (and anyone with a brain and conscience) consider to be the murder of pre-born children.
Of course, America’s self-appointed conscience, Planned Parenthood, gleefully celebrated the ruling forcing nuns to pay for abortions. But I have a hard time imagining most Americans like this ruling, or the way in which liberal states are perverting the legal system by getting activist judges to find technicalities through which they continue to defy the will of the people, the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s prior rulings.
If you don’t think this is a deliberate targeting of religious Americans for their beliefs, note at the link that the Obama Administration “carved out exemptions for huge corporations like ExxonMobil and PepsiCo but not for religious individuals,” and the blue states’ lawsuit doesn’t challenge the exemption for the corporations, only for religious employers like the nuns.
Attorney Mark Rienzi of the Becket Foundation, which is representing the Little Sisters, said that sadly, these pro-abortion Attorneys General “think ?attacking?nuns is a way to score?political points.?These men?may think their campaign?donors want them?to sue nuns, but our guess is most taxpayers disagree. No one needs nuns in order to get contraceptives, and no one needs these guys reigniting the last administration’s?divisive and unnecessary?culture war.”
It’s time for the Supreme Court to face the fact that their previous “living Constitution” rulings that pulled new “rights” out of thin air created dangerous conflicts with First Amendment rights, with leftist activists exploiting the confusion to attack Americans of faith. The SCOTUS needs to stop issuing these timid technical rulings that apply only to one narrow area and make it clear that First Amendment rights such as free speech and religious freedom reign supreme. If that doesn’t work, then maybe they could use their gavels to pound the idea into the heads of lower court liberal judges who refuse to take “no” for an answer, even when it’s handed down to them from the Supreme Court.
Evening Edition - January 20
By Mike Huckabee
A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!
Daily Verse (KJV)
"With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love."
– Ephesians 4:2
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.