BY MIKE HUCKABEE
Blessings on you and your family from all the Huckabee team! Thank you for subscribing!
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
Lord, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear.
Florida sting operation in Bay County busts 19
Florida officials announced Wednesday that a sting operation in Bay County had busted 19 people on child sex exploitation charges. Five were arrested for possessing child pornography and 14 for traveling to engage in sexual activity with a minor. Seven of them, or about 40%, were in the US illegally (thanks, Joe!)
Now, watch all the liberal media figures cover their eyes and ears and keep telling us that “Sound of Freedom” is just rightwing QAnon propaganda.
Thanks to Ben Bartee at PJ Media for pointing this out:
SpaceNews.com reports that the Defense Department is requesting a $30 billion budget next year for the US Space Force, the largest ever and $3.7 billion more than it got in 2023. And just a week or so after Congress heard scary claims from government workers that there are space aliens out there who could crush us like bugs! What a startling coincidence...
The judge assigned to the latest Jack Smith indictments of former President Trump is not only an Obama appointee and known to be extremely harsh on January 6th cases, she also worked at Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, the same Democrat-connected law firm that employed Hunter Biden, whose time there overlapped hers by five years.
Further proof that Washington, DC, is more incestuous than the family in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” and with similar results.
I Bet They Didn’t See This Coming:
Donald Trump attorney John Lauro said that by indicting Trump for questioning the “fair and honest” 2020 election, Jack Smith has inadvertently given Trump the legal power to introduce all the issues and evidence that made him believe the election was rigged, and that courts previously refused to look at. Lauro said in 2020, they didn’t have the time or subpoena power to fully examine all the voting irregularities, but now, “We will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation.”
You almost have to feel sorry for the media outlets that were so looking forward to covering the Trump trial, and now they have to find an excuse to ignore it.
Trump’s biggest critics speak up
One reason I invite liberals on my show (not that they usually accept) is that I believe you should have civil debates and discussions with people of different views. Sometimes you might learn something you didn’t know, or at least understand their viewpoint a little better. But it’s mostly because people who only talk to those who agree with them and try to silence any challengers become intellectually lazy and flabby. When forced to defend their positions, as in presidential debates, they look like deer caught in the headlights.
As William F. Buckley famously said, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there ARE other views.”
That’s why I am careful to read what people of other viewpoints have to say about major issues, to see if they have any valid points worth considering before writing my opinions. And in the case of these new indictments of Donald Trump by Jack Smith, it’s been interesting to see that the criticism is coming not just from Trump partisans but also from some of Trump’s harshest critics. There are legal experts out there who despise Trump, or at least don’t want him ever to be President again, and even they are saying these charges are shockingly weak and downright dangerous to the rule of law and the fabric of our society, all of which partisans like Smith will willingly shred in their mindless zeal to “get Trump.”
So today, instead of pointing you to commentary from the pro-Trump media, I’m going to link to several articles on this subject from some of Trump’s biggest critics. But all have legal expertise and even they have to admit that they find these indictments to be ridiculous, groundless, and in the words of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, “a bad joke.” He also says it’s ironic “that the legal theories asserted in the complaint may be more far-fetched than Trump’s legal theories that form the basis for the indictment.” Maybe Smith should indict himself. I wouldn’t object.
I warn you, all of those articles contain the predictable Trump-bashing, a massive dose in the case of Ann Coulter. But I think that when even people who hate Trump that much can’t bring themselves to defend this outrageous prosecutorial abuse of power, it tells us all we’re not kidding ourselves: that really is a skunk we smell.
Message from Mike:
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 570 to go.
If you can afford to do so, please subscribe here:
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.
Wow, looks like this state actually has competent leadership!
Rubio accuses White House of delaying action to crack down on fentanyl
Sen. Marco Rubio accused the Biden White House of delaying action to crack down on fentanyl that’s coming across our Southern border and killing 70,000 Americans a year because it would mean putting sanctions on China, where the drug is coming from, and they’re prioritizing making a “climate deal” with China over saving American lives. If they want to cut down on CO2 emissions, how about stopping the fentanyl and having fewer funeral processions? Details at the link.
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.
Civil War 2.0
By Colonel (Ret.) Kenneth Allard
Here in Texas – with August temperatures breaking records set by the Comanches - we seldom worry about much else. Once you get beyond the conversational basics - how hot, how humid and is any rain forecast - my neighbors have begun to wonder if the country is headed for another civil war. Some even short-title it as “CW 2.0.”
This week we enjoyed a momentary respite from the prevailing smugness, worn like a recognition signal on the faces of the TV elites: the breather arrived when Hunter Biden’s Sweetheart Deal suddenly collapsed. Thereafter the anchor-hunnies on CNN and MSNBC were unable to explain (1) why Hunter’s lawyers and our alleged Justice Department were on exactly the same page; and (2) why the presiding judge mysteriously declined to endorse their subtle machinations. Hadn’t she gotten the memo? Didn’t she understand that President Biden was secretly calling the shots, that her job was merely to acquiesce sweetly?
With whistle-blowers testifying and Hunter’s business buddy appearing in camera before congressional committees, it looked as though confusion might lead to candor. But then, as if orchestrated by divine intervention, Special Counsel Jack Smith appeared with his latest indictments of Donald Trump, 45 pages apparently lifted intact from the Final Report of The Nancy Pelosi Special Committee to Outlaw Insurrection and Inconvenient Thinking. Although he began with the ritual incantation, “No one is above The Law,” Smith quickly gave the TV audience what it had been longing for: a litany of prosecutorial over-statements so far beyond the pale that he seemed transformed into an especially unkempt Inspector Javert.
The Media Swamp promptly declared itself back in session, CNN even empaneling a group-grope of six or seven “experts” to discuss, analyze and dispense the glorious tidings. With nearly orgasmic delight, a similarly full-house was gaggled together over at MSNBC. A distinguished historian old enough to know better joined former solicitors general to assure the breathless audience that these latest indictments of Trump were so significant that they could only be compared to the greatest moments in American history. It was only when those TV munchkins reveled in the prospect of Trump being judged by a black Obama appointee – who may or may not know what a woman really is – that my mind turned back to CW 2.0.
None of the mirth-makers seem to have considered that possibility, intent as they were on punishing Trump by any means available. In their parallel universe of fanatically defending the Bidens, they seem oblivious to the fact that each new indictment simply increases the Trump delegate count. Even worse, they ignore the ominous signs that President Biden, his own ship daily approaching the shoals of misconduct, has placed the American justice system squarely at risk. What happens when both Trump and Biden are snake-bitten and quite possibly in jeopardy of being disqualified from holding elective office? Should we count on either one to opt for the statesmanlike alternative and gracefully withdraw? Do we assume that the Supreme Court will somehow ride to the rescue of one or the other – and would their verdict be enforced in the courts or the streets?
While slavery and states’ rights had been underlying tensions since the beginning, the proximate cause of the Civil War was the election of 1860 and Abraham Lincoln’s elevation to the presidency. As a student of that war, I have walked its battlefields and reviewed most of Ralph Peters’ books; possibly our foremost historical novelist, Ralph applies his genius by deciphering the riddles of the maps, embracing the protagonists and helping modern readers recall that terrible era. Key question: How could the most destructive war in our history have resulted from such well-known and foreseeable consequences?
Later on, I pondered those questions in Bosnia, observing the particular madness wrought by modern civil wars. I maneuvered on battlefields that violated every known principle of war, witnessed the stomach-churning realities of ethnic cleansing; had my heart broken after seeing too many ill-nourished children and bombed-out villages. For a country that had enjoyed a relatively peaceful 800-year history, how had Serbs, Croats and Moslems generated such bloody-minded bitterness? Most of all: Amidst Europe’s most beautiful playgrounds, how had crops of land-mines been planted in every field?
Over twenty years later, I still cannot answer those questions, much less predict the outcome of the foundational dilemmas awaiting us in 2024. But these days I worry less about national sovereignty and more about God’s sovereignty – and His lessons about how we should treat neighbors, brothers, sisters and countrymen.
Colonel (Ret.) Kenneth Allard is a former West Point professor, dean of the National War College and on-air military analyst for NBC News.
LEAVE KEN A COMMENT: Civil War 2.0 - Read Mike's News Analysis - Mike Huckabee
Archer’s transcript; breaking story on Bidens and China; why they’re rushing Trump’s trial
It’s so refreshing to see some transparency out of Washington, DC.
The House Oversight and Accountability Committee has released the full transcript of Monday’s Devon Archer testimony. The whole thing. They didn’t cherry-pick, and there are no heavy black bars hiding this line or that line spoken by Hunter’s former business partner. And it shows that Democrat party shill Dan Goldman of New York was (surprise!) grossly misrepresenting what Archer said.
Oh, let’s just go ahead and say he was lying about it.
If you didn’t see the video of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Archer from yesterday’s newsletter, it’s a must-see. Here are a couple of sharp guys who both know “what’s what,” both clearly aware of --- and amused at --- the real reason Hunter was brought in to work those foreign deals. Hunter was “the brand,” the one who brought the connection and influence of the Vice President of the United States (who happened to be Obama’s “point man” for those counties) and the social connection to others in the power network. Clearly, that was what Hunter brought to the table, not any real expertise. Though schooled in law, he apparently didn’t practice it. I think we all know what the Vice President’s son was spending most of his time doing.
And then-VP Joe Biden was pleased as punch that Hunter was working with this group. He even told Archer that, early on, in a handwritten note at the bottom of a nice personal letter to him. Most accommodating.
The transcript does show Archer testifying that Hunter put his dad on speakerphone 20 times during gatherings of his business associates. But Archer did contradict the allegation by an FBI confidential human source (CHS) in the “1023” about Burisma wanting prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired. Archer said Burisma officials did not want Shokin fired because they thought they had him “under control.”
“This is the narrative spun to me,” Archer said, “that Shokin being fired was a --- was not good, because he was under control as relates to Mykola [Zlochevky, the one whose dog Hunter was dumber than].
The CHS had told the FBI that Zlochevsky bribed Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin, which is what the then-VP has bragged about doing. (Not the bribe part, the firing part.) Archer said he was unaware of the $5 million payments.
But the Biden “brand” was so important to Burisma, Archer said, it was his “honest opinion” that this was what kept the company in business for as long as it was.
He said the Biden “brand” (meaning Joe, not Hunter) attached to the company made people “intimidated to mess with them” from a legal standpoint. Looking at how the Bidens have been protected over the years by the DC permanent bureaucracy, we can see why people would feel that way. Get on their bad side and the powers that be might show that they have --- to borrow an expression from Sen. Chuck Schumer --- “six ways from Sunday” to get back at you. Look at what’s being done right now to Biden’s biggest adversary.
Perhaps Archer wasn’t entirely in the loop when it came to the desire for Shokin’s firing and had misunderstood, because he also told the committee about a particular conversation at the Four Seasons Hotel in Dubai in which Zlochevky told Hunter that Burisma needed “help from the United States government” to deal with the pressure they were under from Shokin. Archer then stepped away, he said, and Hunter was told to “call DC.”
Archer didn’t hear what was said during the call, but was told by Burisma executive Vadyn Pozharskyi that it was with Hunter’s dad. It was days later that VP Biden got in Air Force Two and personally flew to Ukraine, where he leveraged a threat to withhold $1 billion in aid to get Shokin fired. So it doesn’t really make sense for Archer to say his understanding was that they didn’t want him fired.
And in breaking news very early Friday morning, John Solomon reports that text messages provided to the FBI show the origins of Hunter’s controversial dealings with Chinese energy company CEFC, which was “hoping to seize on the name of one of America’s most famous political dynasties to provide cover for its ambitious plan to buy up energy assets within the United States.” It was all about the Biden name. This is a detailed, must-read story, and we’ll follow-up for the weekend with a deeper look.
Archer’s testimony received scant media attention Thursday, while the media did rise to new heights of political hackery in their coverage of President Trump’s arraignment in DC that afternoon. They gleefully talked about “co-conspirators” and some even cut away from Trump’s remarks to reporters, which ranged from the “filth and decay” he saw in DC as his motorcade drove through the streets to the “persecution of a political opponent” that this case clearly is.
Speaking of so-called co-conspirators, the AP ran a story quoting legal experts who say Jack Smith’s failure to name them in his indictment suggests he’s wanting “to expeditiously put the Republican front-runner on trial for seeking to overturn the 2020 election.” Never mind that his hurried timetable is a thinly-veiled attempt to interfere with the 2024 election. Being the AP, they don’t mention that aspect.
“More defendants mean more defense lawyers, and more legal motions and more delays, according to legal scholars and former prosecutors,” they report. “Such a large cast of defendants would make it extremely difficult for Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith to get Trump in front of a jury before the final stretch of the 2024 campaign, the experts said.” Does anyone else see the problem with that sentence?
It goes without saying that Trump is the big fish, not those other folks, and that Smith wants to time this trial to give maximum negative exposure before the election. They go on to quote former federal prosecutor Christopher Ott, who says, “This keeps it pretty streamlined. “All of these motions by defendants affect all of the defendants, including Trump. It would slow things down. If you don’t name and charge them, you don’t have that trouble.”
I doubt the AP talked with Alan Dershowitz, or wanted to; otherwise, the whole tone of their story would have been different. Dershowitz said Smith’s conduct has been so egregious that if he loses this case, he might find himself indicted, for conspiring to deprive President Trump of his constitutional right to free speech. “That’s how serious this is,” he said.
Smith also committed a lie by omission, according to Dershowitz, by “deliberately, willfully and maliciously” leaving out that part of Trump’s speech in which he told his audience to go “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol. “Jack [Smith] leaves that out,” he said, “and if you’re going to indict somebody for telling lies, don’t tell lies in the indictment. If you’re going to indict somebody for denying people their constitutional rights, don’t deny them their constitutional rights by indicting them for free speech. That’s how hypocritical this is.”
Dershowitz has also pointed out that Smith violated Trump’s right to counsel by naming his attorneys as unindicted co-conspirators, which “basically says they’re criminals for giving him advice on how to challenge the election.”
Of course, the faster the trial proceeds, the less time there will be for examining why Trump might’ve had good reason to doubt the election outcome. Trump attorney Alina Habba says this case “opens the door” to an examination of that. Even now, a new report from JUST THE NEWS cites five election irregularities from 2020 that Smith certainly wouldn’t want to have brought into his court. I say bring it all in.
There has never been a clearer case of election interference. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has released a powerful statement.
And former presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard spares no words, either. She also points out the very different ways that Presidents Trump and Biden are being treated by a corrupted legal system. It’s that system that has to be saved.
Cubans: Get us out of here
Cuba was once a popular tropical vacation destination until Castro and the communists took over and turned it into an island prison. Now, a new (anonymous, of course) poll by Cubadata reveals that a whopping 57.5% of Cubans say they intend to leave Cuba (maybe that should read “wish they could leave Cuba.") Another 25.3% aren’t sure, while only 17.2% said they’re not considering leaving Cuba. I assume those were the Cubans who were too scared to be honest with the pollsters.
The top three reasons Cubans want to leave were the economic crisis, food shortages and lack of any future in Cuba. Also mentioned were the shortages of medicine and/or poor healthcare services (wait, I thought Michael Moore assured us that Cuban healthcare was the best in the world), lack of job opportunities, lack of freedom, political persecution, insecurity and violence. Attention, young people: This is the utopia that socialism really leads to.
It's telling that, from California to Cuba, the more socialism there is, the more people there are who want to get the heck out.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told Sean Hannity that he accepts California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s challenge to debate him. Although he made the excellent point that the debate’s already been decided by all the people fleeing California and moving to Florida.
Sadly, Vice President Kamala Harris does not seem as eager to come to Florida and learn the truth about the state’s black studies curriculum that she keeps lying about. She rejected DeSantis’ invitation, saying, “There is no roundtable, no lecture, no invitation we will accept to debate an undeniable fact: there were no redeeming qualities of slavery.”
I’m sure DeSantis isn’t interested in debating that, either, since that’s not what the Florida curriculum says. But it gets her out of having to go into a duel of wits with an unloaded weapon.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY:
Thank you for reading my newsletter.
For more news, visit my website.