June 14, 2018

Starting July 1, we will only send the Evening Edition to subscribers of that newsletter.  Please add your name here to receive these emails


The long-awaited IG report found that James Comey deviated from FBI and DOJ procedures in handling the probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails but found no evidence of political bias.  And Bonnie & Clyde deviated from the law in robbing banks, but they didn’t do it for the money.



Another Supreme Court decision has arrived in a flurry expected this month.  The SCOTUS voted 7-2 to strike down a Minnesota law banning voters from wearing political apparel such as partisan T-shirts or MAGA caps at the polls.  The case was brought by a voter who was told he had to remove his Tea Party shirt and “Please I.D. Me” button before being allowed to vote, which the SCOTUS ruled was a violation of his First Amendment free speech rights.


The majority held that states may ban campaign signs, solicitations and other direct attempts to influence voters in and near polling places to protect voters from the clamor and din of electioneering.  But extending that ban to passive, non-disruptive expressions of political views such as a voter’s own clothing is taking it too far.


So does this mean I can now vote while wearing a T-shirt with my daughter’s picture on it?




The Berkeley, California, City Council declared a “climate emergency” worse than World War II and voted to demand “humane population control.”  I say to them what I say to all radicals who demand we lower the population: “Okay, you go first.”




At the New York Times, everything President Trump does is wrong, even when he does exactly what they advised him to do.


For everyone who’s been asking me if it’s true my daughter Sarah is leaving the White House at the end of the year, I think I’ll let her respond.  She’s had even more experience dealing with fake news than I have.




Here’s reason #3,934 why people are signing petitions to split off from California.  I should warn you that the link takes you to the type of content that should be seen by adults only.  Which is ironic, considering it’s a description of the graphic sex ed curriculum California public schools force on children.  Be grateful you at least have the option of whether or not to see it, because parents who don’t want their kids exposed to it are told, “Tough toenails” (FYI, that might the only body part not covered in the curriculum.)  But the schools say parents are permitted to tell their children if there are parts of it they disagree with.  How magnanimous of them to grant parents the privilege of free speech.  Wonder how long that will last?





This story features an interesting examination of the attempt to cite Scripture as an argument for lenient immigration and border control policies.  It includes the rationale of theologians on both sides of the issue.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t delve into why people who spend much of their time attacking or mocking Christians for believing in the Bible cite the Bible to support their positions when it’s convenient.  But we can probably figure that out without Divine intervention.





Those of you who never miss my TBN TV show “Huckabee” (and if you have missed it, you can see past episodes here, so there’s really no excuse: will remember my April 28th interview with Cabot Phillips of  He’s the young man who bravely ventures out into America’s university campuses armed only with camera and microphone and asks students questions guaranteed to trigger them into running for the nearest Play Doh-equipped safe space.  Well, he has a new video up, and it’s a must-see.


In this one, he interviews George Washington University students about the Supreme Court decision in favor of Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips.  The question: should a Christian baker be forced to take a job making a same-sex wedding cake if it violates his religious beliefs? 


The predictable response from some students who’ve spent too much time steeping in the PC culture of leftist professors: of course he should, because baking is his job and he has no right to say no to anyone.  As one poetically put it, “His ability to exercise his freedom of religion ends when that infringes on another person’s ability to be who they are.” 


Quite moving.  But hold on: there are follow-up questions.  What if the baker is Jewish; should he be forced to bake a cake for a Palestinian wedding?  What if he’s black; does he have to cater a KKK rally?  One young woman who sides with the Jewish and black bakers admits that she’s contradicting what she just said about the Christian baker.  What’s really happening is that she’s undergoing the uncomfortable process of having to examine something from a different point of view than she’s accustomed to, which used to be one of the main reasons for attending college before it was outlawed. 


Watch to the end: it’s surprising and heartening to see how many students actually side with religious freedom, including one who knows enough about the case to realize how badly Colorado authorities discriminated against the baker because of his religion.   


If I could add one more question, it would be, “If the baker were Muslim; should he be forced to cater a same-sex wedding reception?”  Only I wouldn’t ask that of students, I’d ask it of the people who keep filing lawsuits against Christian bakers that subject them to bankruptcy and death threats, but they never seem to target Muslim bakeries.  Is it because they fear Muslims would retaliate, because that's awfully Islamophobic? And if so, does that mean they only target people they think won’t fight back, since that’s the very definition of bullying, and I thought they were opposed to bullying? 


I read that during an acceptance speech on the Tony Awards, an actor in the gay-themed play “Angels in America” got a big ovation for taking a stand for tolerance by declaring, “Let’s just bake a cake for everyone who wants a cake to be baked!”  It was a perfect illustration of the lack of empathy in the insular world of the self-appointed tolerance police. 


Obviously, their definition of tolerance is a perfect world in which everyone sees things their way.  Real tolerance would be religious people not trying to force them to live in a way that complies with their sacred beliefs, and them not trying to force religious people to comply with things that violate their sacred beliefs.  No matter where you stand on any issue, using force of government to make everyone say and do only the things you approve of is not tolerance.  It’s totalitarianism.

Commentary continues below advertisement





I’m about to do something I don’t often do: I’m going to offer what I think is some good advice to the leadership of the Democratic Party.  The point I want to make may become clearer if we look at three stories in the news, side-by-side.


First, there is Cynthia Nixon, the “Sex And The City” star who is challenging Gov. Andrew Cuomo from the left (and you can imagine how far to the left you have to circle) in New York’s Democratic Primary.  She is a perfect representative of the type of people who are taking over the Party; if not the leadership, then at least the public image and state- and local-level offices.  These are the “progressives,” which I put in quotation marks because there’s nothing progressive about believing in ideas that have been tried for over a century and brought nothing but failure and misery every time. 


The far-left tail now seems to be wagging the dog, as the national party moves further left to accommodate the loudest, most activist part of its base, which refuses even to pretend to be moderate anymore.  Instead, they openly endorse policies such as socialism, open borders, amnesty and repeal of the Second Amendment that the national party has tried to paper over for years.  Ms Nixon represents that base well: she’s called for even higher taxes in New York to help fund her just-released education plan.  It includes barring Immigration enforcement agents from schools, easing disciplinary measures at schools with the highest suspension and arrest rates, and free college for all, including illegal immigrants.


Now, if you listen to certain media outlets, you would think that stuff like this is the wave of the future.  It’s what intellectuals tell us will happen first in California and sweep eastward across the nation.  Before the Democratic leadership swallows that, let’s look at two other stories in this week’s news.


California activists just garnered over 402,000 signatures on a petition that will put a measure on the November ballot to split California into three states.  They would be North California, South California, and California, which would be a skinny strip along the coast where all the “progressives” can live like wild chimps in a nature preserve: free to do whatever they like, but no longer able to fling their poop at those around them.  (Personally, I would’ve proposed splitting it into two states: “Left California,” for multiple reasons, and “Wanted to Leave California.”)


Meanwhile on the other coast, in deep blue New York, even among Democratic primary voters, the latest Siena poll shows Cynthia Nixon trailing Cuomo by 61-26%.  And the more she’s campaigned, the wider the gap has grown.


Put all this together and here’s what it means: even in the most liberal, coastal elitist states in America, far-left progressivism is a pitiful loser of a position with the vast majority of voters.  No, we are not “all socialists now.”  Believing your propaganda is how you end up losing about 1,000 elected offices over a decade.   


I offer this advice to the Democratic leadership for two reasons:  (1.) I sincerely hope you pull back from the cliff and move to the middle, for the sake of a healthy, two-party system.  And (2.) I have no illusions that you will actually listen to a word I try to tell you.



Commentary continues below advertisement


 At this writing, we’re still waiting for the report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton’s email case.  It’s scheduled to be released Thursday, with the President receiving it by midafternoon.  The version we see later in the day will no doubt contain some redactions, as the DOJ has had it over two weeks for “review.”  The President (being the President) had better receive both the redacted and unredacted versions, to be able to compare them and see what the DOJ is trying to withhold from Congress and the general public.


Keep in mind, this report doesn’t deal directly with the FBI’s investigation of Trump and alleged Russia “collusion,” or with the Mueller investigation that spun off from that.  It doesn’t examine the process for obtaining the FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign associates.  But it deals with largely the same cast of characters at the FBI, and if it shows that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page and the rest of that sorry lot were in the tank for Hillary, we’ll be able to infer a lot about their motivations regarding Trump.  In other words, if “the fix was in” for Hillary, we may assume “the knives were out” for Trump.


So that’s coming within hours.  In the meantime, I must say that the Rod Rosenstein story from yesterday --- concerning threats he made to members of Congress and their staff about putting their email and phone records under subpoena --- has caught fire.  The idea that such intimidation tactics might be used by bureaucrats against elected officials and their staffers who are trying to carry out their constitutional duties is just not in keeping with what we want our government to be here in America.  And as the story got around, it became increasingly clear that the Rosenstein temper is legendary and that similar threats have been made, in other meetings with lots of shouting.  Most of all, the story suggested how desperate the Department of “Justice” is to hide...what??...and how close the committees charged with oversight must be to finding it.


Andrew C. McCarthy has explained the legal implications of Rosenstein’s behavior in his latest column for NATIONAL REVIEW.  The great thing about it is that he places the contentious meeting in the context of what was going on five months ago, on January 10.  McCarthy reminds us that this was at a time when they were trying to maintain that they would never use unverified information in a FISA application.  They wanted us to believe that they would clearly inform the FISA court of the questionable origins and potential biases of the information supplied to them.  We found out only later that what they’d told us about the FISA application process was a pile of you-know-what.


McCarthy has done the heavy lifting for this latest piece, outlining in clear detail what is wrong with having the deeply conflicted Rosenstein play the role of FBI-head and Mueller’s supervisor.  (By the way, did you know McCarthy has just been hired as a FOX News contributor?  He’s been our go-to legal “advisor” for some time, adding greatly to our understanding of complex legal issues at a time when we really need that.)  He says he doesn’t know Rosenstein personally and is not attacking his integrity but theorizes that the conflicts he’s facing in his work are distorting his judgment.


I’m not sure I can cut Rosenstein that much slack.  What is it that has kept him from recusing himself, given those enormous conflicts?  Failure to do that is, in itself, a horrendously bad judgment call.  It’s even possible that he’s keeping some documents under wraps because they implicate HIM.  After all, he did sign one of the warrant renewals sent to the FISA court.  Whether or not that is true, just the appearance of something like that is one more reason he shouldn’t be anywhere near this case.


In fact, McCarthy makes a compelling argument that it doesn’t make sense for Jeff Sessions to recuse himself and Rosenstein not to, that in fact it should have been the opposite.  Rosenstein has to go, and all the documents must be disclosed.




Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Comments 1-28 of 28

  • RJ Gillespie

    06/22/2018 07:35 PM

    Thank you for the honest Christian perspective. I love reading your news. Thank God for you, Sean Hannity, Allen West and Laura Ingraham. You are the only ones I trust anymore. I pray for Sara. She is awesome!!! I am so glad that she stands up to the hateful Liberals. There has NEVER been anyone that has done that job as well. WOW!

  • Firewagon

    06/15/2018 05:25 PM

    If this Clinton Crime Family cabal is NOT doing the perp walk, in their orange prison suits, long before I get too old to drive, I will be forced to begin ignoring STOP signs and Traffic Signals, by using the "Clinton Get Out of Jail FREE Card," I had no criminal intent!

  • Ellen Chapman

    06/15/2018 09:54 AM

    I’m curious about your take on the current state of affairs where children are being put inICE detention centers. This seems so counter to Christian values

  • Sally Higgins

    06/15/2018 06:51 AM

    I love your sense of humor & most of all your love for God & our United States of America.

  • deedee

    06/15/2018 01:40 AM

    What are we going to do
    ..Not just talk...about those in the Obama Justice dept who have broken the law intentionally so they could hijack the govt? senators?? house reps? true American's continue to pray for our USA.

  • Arlene Hurley

    06/15/2018 12:37 AM

    Dear Mike. Hear I am again, asking you something that has nothing to do with all of the news you have reported, that I enjoy reading. I just saw a report on OAN news that said we are giving 6.6 million dollars by Ms. Nauert to the white helmets in Syria. All I’ve read and seen about the white helmets are that they are tied with terrorists. I think that President Trump should look into this. If we are giving to terrorists groups there’s going to be a lot said from conservatives. Thus is dangerous because no one in Syria has said that the white helmets helped civilians. Please look into this. Thank you. I’m also glad that Sarah is not leaving her job.

  • Dr. James Wiest, MS, DVM

    06/14/2018 10:23 PM

    Gov. Huckabee, I don't know what will happen to MY state if the referendum goes through. I will be stuck in California (Northern San Luis Obispo county). We are a conservative enclave with horrible pockets of progressives. I can only hope and pray that if it does go forward that our pockets of sanity can overwhelm the pockets of lunacy throughout the state. I know so many people that are trying to be good but they get seduced by the progressive talking points and go to the dark side. It would be nice to stop the tide of progressiveness.

  • Carl Smith

    06/14/2018 09:00 PM

    Well the IG's report has been thru the cleansing process and it is now indeed a Fairy Tale. Absolutely No Evidence of Political Bias. There you have it straight from the Horses Mouth so it's now cast in stone and irrefutable.

  • michael murphy

    06/14/2018 08:44 PM

    I love watching Sarah take on the press. It must gall them to no end to be so tactfully "handled" with such assertion. It would be even more fun to let her actually treat them like the 15 year old teenager persona they take on when they don't get their way. Except for Jim A. , he is more like a ten year old in a perpetual tantrum. A good commentary Michael, I look forward to them.

  • Darlene Morris

    06/14/2018 08:07 PM

    Awesome as always! I would like to forward some of your evening news to my daughter so that she can join and get her news and a chuckle with me. How do I do that. Also are you on cable tv....we have direct tv a and would like to see your program.

  • JC Holland

    06/14/2018 08:05 PM

    IG report a big nothing. Hilary walks again. So do the top fbi and doj criminals.

  • Jim Pace

    06/14/2018 07:46 PM

    I love reading your stories and believe everything you say because you are so correct. Please keep up your great work.
    I love watching Sara tear these stupid media people up. Today was a good example. I sure hope she doesn't leave.

    Thank you so much

  • Tom Hallum

    06/14/2018 07:34 PM

    I'm confused about the e-mails that I get. I still get some that have a synopsis or the beginning of several stories and I also get the one entitled "Evening Edition". I do not care for the way the Evening Edition works. Specifically clicking a link to go to a browser. It is much simpler to scan the articles in the e-mail and only click on ones that I want to read more about. If Evening Edition is replacing the other e-mail that I previously described, I will just unsubscribe. If the other one is going to continue, then I will just unsubscribe from the Evening Edition one. Any help you have to offer to clear up my confusion would be appreciated.

  • Betsy Ross

    06/14/2018 07:13 PM

    I think something needs to be done about gays weaponizing their protected status to cause harm to others/businesses. The bakery case is a perfect example...the bakery said they could choose any pre-made cake they wanted...they refused. They also had to ability to choose a different bakery but chose instead to file suit against this bakery. The publicity caused serious harm to the family and the business. There needs to be a point where their protected status ends and targeted harm begins. Perhaps it should be revoked in these types of cases? Giving gays protected status was to protect them from discrimination...not allow them to target, harass, and sue innocent people!

  • Mariann Thayer

    06/14/2018 06:50 PM

    Governor Huckabee,
    I am a newsletter subscriber and Twitter follower. Love your point of view and your humor, and love how Sarah handles those media idiots (reference today's briefing). Anyway, you sent a tweet this morning about the woman with her head stuck in a tailpipe. After coming home from work one day, imagine my horror of finding my husband laying under his car attempting suicide. I understand these are different situations, but it has taken me all day to read the whole tweet. That was 27 yrs ago and he finally suceeded after several attempts. I know you meant no harm, and it was funny, but it brought back a lot of very difficult times.

    Keep up the great work!

  • Charles Nicholson

    06/14/2018 06:46 PM

    Governor, Your wit, wisdom, candor are nothing short of AMAZING! Carry on!


    06/14/2018 06:42 PM

    Wow what a day............the IG report is still not read by everyone and more pages are coming forth. I just watched Trey Gowdy and he wants more for his constituents and I don't blame him. Rosenstein, Comey, Strozk, and the entire truckload of the lefties need to go, maybe to a graybar hotel for a while wearing nice orange jumpsuits! Don't just get their hands slapped either. They can eat bologna sandwiches also!
    Years ago while working in the Aerospace industry, if we even thought about telling someone what we did at work, we would have been thrown out on the street etc. there was "rule of law", but not today and that is very sad.
    Maybe President Trump can clean it up and throw the bums out!
    Carmen Price

  • Bruce Deming

    06/14/2018 06:41 PM

    No political bias? Must be they got to Horowitz. Hillary just walks away laughing. Time to stock up on survival food, this isn't gonna sit well.

  • Sue Breslin

    06/14/2018 06:29 PM

    Govenor, I am so angry with this report and with the head honcho's of the FBI.
    C.WRAY comments are BS, looks like they're doing a Starbucks solution. I personally have worked in every aspect of government and know for a fact, your first week of training involves INTEGRITY. Why did they not have it before. MUST THINK AMER PEOP ARE STUPID. Nothing like deviating from the course. Must think American are really dumbed down. This so called 'BIG' FBI meeting is nothing but escapism.

  • Sylvia D Nash

    06/14/2018 06:21 PM

    I know your daughter is calling it fake news about her leaving the white house but please, please, please tell her SHE CAN NOT LEAVE. She is absolutely the best press secretary this country has ever had. I love the way she handles them. She is an ace. I pray God continues to bless her and use her. Trump needs her :) Blessings to you and your family.

  • Pius Arinze Has

    06/14/2018 06:11 PM

    Democrats can only destroy themselves further.
    Also, I think the IG is an OBAMA appointee. It's obvious he's helping the Clinton cover up in FBI. Special counsel investigation is important.

  • Judy Lee Smith

    06/14/2018 06:00 PM

    I believe that, of all the persons now involved in any way in the administration, my favorite surely must be the White House Press Secretary. May I too wear her picture on whatever I wear to vote?

  • Peter Bookman

    06/14/2018 05:56 PM

    Dear Mike,

    Please be advised that a Jewish baker does not have a religious objection to Palestinians such that he would not bake a cake for a Palestinian wedding. An Israeli, not Jewish, but Israeli (there is a difference) might object to baking a cake for Hamas, but that is a different issue. Your analogy is misplaced.

  • Sherry Lewis

    06/14/2018 05:51 PM

    Thank you for your commentaries that set things straight on what actually happens in government compared to the media that distorts them in the opposite direction. Your daughter is awesome too!

  • Barbara Huffaker

    06/14/2018 05:50 PM

    I gotta admit that until today, I only scanned your comments and the only reason is I am so terribly lazy sometime BUT I completely enjoyed your comments today on current events!!!!

  • Barbara Rush

    06/14/2018 05:48 PM

    Given the family resemblance to Sarah, you and your wife couldn't have voted without this latest S. Ct. decision.

  • Stephen Russell

    06/14/2018 05:45 PM

    Berkeley forget in study to claim the World in a Climate Emergency.
    Sue the UN, DNC DLC, Unions etc
    Tear them Up.

  • Stephen Russell

    06/14/2018 05:44 PM

    Cal 3 benefits:
    Less taxes by Region
    No Sacramento dictates.
    Leftists run Bay area.
    Reduce tourism
    Red State So CA inland etc to border.
    Cut up State Govt.
    Revote in state offices.
    , Radical & Fun.
    OC goes Full Red for South CA.