Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff!
Today's newsletter includes:
- First Disney, now Oreo?!? SMH
- No joke
- And more…
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected].
First Disney, now Oreo?!? SMH
The “woke” left, having ruined everything from girls’ sports to Disney World, has now convinced the makers of Oreos that their business model of selling cookies requires them to promote the LGBTQ agenda.
Personally, I’m still waiting to hear what Famous Amos has to say about homosexuality before I decide what to think about it. In the meantime, another snack food decided to make a different kind of social statement. Cracker Jack is bringing out limited edition packaging honoring the accomplishments of women in sports and changing its name to “Cracker Jill.”
If they wanted to save on design fees, they should’ve just put a wig on Cracker Jack and claimed that he’s a woman. That seems to be the direction women’s sports are headed anyway. Besides, we now have a Supreme Court Justice who can’t even define what a “woman” is, so why should we expect our snack food makers to know?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene said she reported former comedian-turned-DNC mouthpiece Jimmy Kimmel to the Capitol Police for using his monologue to attack her for criticizing the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. He called her “Klan mom” and said, “Wow, where is Will Smith when you need him?”
Kimmel dismissed her complaint, saying it was a joke (I’m glad he pointed that out; it’s often hard to tell with his monologues.) But Greene said it’s no joke, and she’d already had some of his “fans” who were incited by him call her office and threaten violence against a Congress member.
This gets into a grey area of determining what’s protected free speech and what’s an illegal threat or incitement. I doubt anything will happen to Kimmel, not even second thoughts about how “amusing” it is to endorse violence against someone for holding a different political opinion (I’ll also note that he was suggesting a large man attack a woman, something that he may have no problem with, but I’m apparently one of the last people left who remembers what a “woman” is and that men aren’t supposed to hit them.)
This sort of openly expressed wish to physically assault or even murder anyone who holds non-“woke” political views has become a hallmark of the tolerant, diversity-loving left. I wish they had as much self-awareness as they do arrogance. If so, maybe they’d realize how dangerous and unfunny that is.
Also how hypocritical. Remember when they tried to blame the Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting on a Sarah Palin ad with a “crosshairs” logo in it that the shooter never even saw? Or how they continue to claim that Trump is directly responsible for any violence other people committed on January 6th, even after he told his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically”? Yet they gleefully cheer on the idea of violence against anyone they disagree with, even though they know plenty of deranged leftists are listening, from the guy who shot up the office of the Family Research Council to the Bernie Bro who nearly murdered Rep. Steve Scalise.
I tell plenty of jokes about Democrats on my show, but whether you like them or not, it’s obvious that they’re jokes and never calls for violence. See if you can say the same thing about the left after reading through this list of very unfunny reminders of the consequences of this kind of violent rhetoric, compiled by Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.
The Truth Hurts
CNN’s Brian Stelter was caught like a deer in the headlights at the University of Chicago’s “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy” conference when a freshman student during the Q&A read a long list of fake stories CNN has pushed (Russian collusion, Jussie Smollett, Nick Sandman, the Kavanaugh rape allegations, Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation, etc. etc.) He then asked if all this regime cheerleading by corporate media means the canon of journalistic ethics is dead or no longer applies; and since these “mistakes” all seem to go in one political direction, are we expected to believe that’s just a random coincidence?
I love Stelter’s initial response: it’s time for lunch! After hearing his follow-up response, I think he should’ve stuck with that.
There’s a debate going on about the word “groomer,” meaning someone who tries to sexualize innocent children, “grooming” them into becoming victims of pedophiles. Those who oppose the Florida law preventing inappropriate sex and gender lessons for children under 8 without parental consent are furious at being called “groomers,” and they’ve enlisted their media mouthpieces to lecture us on how very, very rude and inaccurate that is. But considering they started this controversy over what should be a bill that every decent person would agree on, and they immediately lied about it being a “Don’t Say Gay” bill, it’s hard to work up much sympathy for them when they whine about being mischaracterized.
We haven’t used that term around here, although seeing how the proponents of sexualizing kindergarten classes are so terrified of it makes me kind of want to start saying it. But I like to be fair and accurate, so I’ll let you decide whether it’s appropriate. Here are two arguments on the issue.
The pro side is from Kylee Zempel at The Federalist who argues that weirdos who want to sexualize children and hide it from their parents absolutely should be stigmatized as “groomers.” And as for their complaints that it’s an unfair characterization, remember that these are the same people who routinely call Republicans “Nazi” and “fascist.”
And the con side comes from Jeff Charles at RedState.com, who thinks we should be careful not to diminish the seriousness of the crime of grooming children by applying that term to everyone who disagrees with the law:
On the other hand, he also agrees that for a lot of people who are fighting this law, the term “groomers” is entirely appropriate.
Read them both, and then as Mike Meyers used to say, “talk amongst yourselves.”
Former President Obama attempts some revisionist history about how tough he was on Russian aggression, and pundits rush to remind us that Russia invaded Crimea and Ukraine on his watch after he mocked Mitt Romney’s warning about Russia by saying, “The ‘80s called, and they want their foreign policy back.”
The punchline: Obama attempted to rewrite his history with Putin at an event called the "Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy" conference.
Issa calls for an investigation into BLM
California Republican Rep. Darryl Issa is demanding that the DOJ investigate Black Lives Matter over its secret purchase of a $6 million mansion with donors’ money. He called it “disturbing” and said, "This definitely has the suggestion of misappropriation of charitable funds and an abuse of our nonprofit laws." It would also be disturbing if the Biden DOJ ignored it. Not surprising, but disturbing.
I Just Wanted to Say:
Thank you for reading the Evening Edition.