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: Thanks, POLITICO, but I wasn't being POLITICAL --- Join me in Branson on June 12 -- Another round of primaries tomorrow -- Code violations -- Double standards -- Evening Edition - Daily Verse
Help kickoff our June fundraising drive. Help us elect Christian candidates from the State House to the White House. Men and women like Pastor Mark Harris of North Carolina who won his primary this week against a well-funded Republican incumbent. Support Huck PAC with a donation today. DONATE HERE
If you enjoy the newsletter also, please forward it to a friend and tell them they can subscribe for free at MikeHuckabee.com/Subscribe
After reading Kyle Cheney’s piece in POLITICO that mentioned my commentary about Trey Gowdy, I was left with one question: where to start?
Maybe we should take a look at the very first paragraph, specifically the phrase “the President’s unsupported claim...” One has to have been living in a pretty deep cave –- or be in deep denial –- to dismiss the President’s claim as unsupported. On the contrary, we’re finding out more almost every day that lends support to the President’s claim –- so much support that it’s hard to keep up with it all. We KNOW the spy was there, who he is and essentially what he was doing, along with a growing cast of supporting characters. We now have a timeline that is at odds with the evolving story from the FBI/DOJ. From the Strzok-Page texts, John Brennan’s crazed anti-Trump tweets (hard to believe this person actually ran the CIA) and much more, we can glean the motivation. And we have stonewalling like there’s no tomorrow.
No, a phrase like “the president’s unsupported claim” is meant to slide through the reader’s eyes and embed itself in his or her brain without any pesky thinking taking place along the way. I recall the phrase “discredited swift boaters” being used to similar effect when John Kerry was running for President.
As far as we know, Gowdy still hasn’t seen those key documents that have been under subpoena since last August. No one who was at that meeting has said they were produced; as I recall, Mark Meadows said none were offered. Devin Nunes called for them again on Sunday. Gowdy is apparently just taking the bureaucrats at their word. And that --- not the political question of whether or not Gowdy is a loyal Republican – was the focus of my piece. It wasn’t “Wow, Trey Gowdy isn’t thinking like a Republican! Why won’t he support the President?” It was, “Wow, Trey Gowdy isn’t thinking like a prosecutor! What is going on with him?” Other comments cited along with mine in the POLITICO piece were mostly about political loyalty; my commentary was not. Rather, it was about trying to figure out what’s going on, to make sense of something that seems nonsensical.
With all the partisan spin happening on both the left and the right, I’ve tried very hard to stick to facts and not make this about politics. (Keep in mind, pointing out the partisanship of others in my analysis is not, in itself, partisanship.) It’s easy to point fingers at the usual suspects; we can get that anywhere these days. I’d like to think my readers come to me because they’re trying to escape the spin and find out what’s really been happening. I’ve come out in favor of declassifying everything possible without damaging legitimate sources and methods –- operative word: “legitimate” –- and letting the chips fall where they may, regardless of who might or might not be implicated as a result. I was part of Trump’s campaign myself, and, believe me, if I had had any inkling that something nefarious was going on with Russia, I would have been outta there faster than you can say “the President’s unsupported claims.”
I know from personal experience what it’s like to be on the receiving end of partisan wrath (being “in the doghouse,” as Cheney would put it) for deviating from the party line on occasion. Although the quote he chose from my commentary reflects my view, I felt out of place being included in a piece that was primarily about loyalty to the Republican side. There should be no “side” here; if Gowdy has good reason for his odd behavior, okay. But let’s see it.
Cheney --- and Gowdy, too, come to think of it --- might want to read this article by D. C. McAllister. It lends even more support to the conclusion that this investigation was hardly business-as-usual for FBI officials, who deviated from their own guidelines to conduct it the way they did. It was NOT by the book. The FBI has set-in-stone policy regarding the steps of an investigation and the appropriate use of “intelligence agents” (spies) and “confidential sources” (spies) along the way, and the emerging timeline for this case is all wrong. Evidence of a serious threat to national security must be present, and she makes the case that it was not.
For Gowdy to be ignoring that now is truly mystifying, and I’d say the same of any respected prosecutor regardless of party affiliation.
Join me in Branson June 12
By Mike Huckabee
I'm coming to Branson at Silver Dollar City on June 12th.
Join me and a host of great guests including Tony Orlando, Irish Tenor, Anthony Kearns, Country singer Moe Bandy, the Shanghai Acrobats and much more! The show starts at 11 am at the SDC Opera House and ends at 1pm. You'll even get first entry and the best VIP seats in the house! Attending the show is free, but you will need to purchase an admission ticket to the park. You can enjoy all the attractions and other great Silver Dollar City shows the rest of the day. Just click here for all the details:
Another round of primaries tomorrow
By Mike Huckabee
Mark your calendars, voters: there are primary elections tomorrow in Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, and the biggest – and naturally, the weirdest – in California.
California has a bizarre primary system: instead of each party picking a candidate, the votes are all counted together, and the top two vote-getters make it to the ballot. Like so many ideas that come out of California, it was meant to promote “fairness,” but in practice, it just gums up the works and makes things less fair. In many areas, both top candidates are from the same party, so the other party has no representation; and instead of focusing on winning their own party’s support, candidates end up trying to influence the other party’s voters as well.
For instance, Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Gavin Newsom ran attack ads on his chief Democratic rivals, former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Treasurer John Chiang. This angered Democratic Party officials because the ads could help Republican John Cox come in second, and with a Republican actually on the top of the ballot, Republicans who have been as dispirited as castaways on the last island of sanity would have a reason to turn out. That might thwart the expected “blue wave” in local races, which could help keep the US House in GOP hands. Analysts compare all these complicated, inter-related ramifications to 3-D chess, but it’s more like trying to play pool while blindfolded. No matter how good you are at it, there’s no way to predict whether you’re going to sink the ball or rip the table.
By Mike Huckabee
A real estate broker in Massachusetts thought he and his 11-year-old daughter were just showing patriotism and honoring veterans when they put 200 tiny American flags on his firm’s lawn for Memorial Day. But Chelmsford city officials thought otherwise. They left a note threatening the company with a code violation for having an “excessive” number of flags. They claim it’s a safety issue (the flags might be a distraction at a busy intersection) and the city prohibits the use of the flag in commercial promotions.
But the real estate agent said this wasn’t a commercial promotion, it was just a show of patriotism. In one of the more defiant acts of patriotism Massachusetts has seen since the 1700s, he not only refused to remove the flags, he added 200 more. Fox News’ Todd Starnes reported that the city also made the same charge of “excessive flags” against a local church, which isn’t even a commercial enterprise.
The sentiment of the townspeople seems to be firmly with the patriots, not the bureaucrats. A word of advice to the government: the last time someone tried to punish Massachusetts patriots for being too pro-American, it was at Lexington and Concord. It didn’t turn out well in the long run for the anti-American flag side.
By Mike Huckabee
Well, that didn’t take long. Just one day after apologizing for launching a filthy, sexist slur at the President’s daughter, Ivanka – with the kind of heartfelt statement that reeked of being composed by a network committee and signed with an Autopen - TBS’ Samantha Bee was accepting an award from the Television Academy for promoting “social change” related to women’s issues (!) And behind closed doors (the press was conveniently barred from the ceremony), Bee reportedly defended her show in a way that made it pretty clear the apology was just insincere lip service. But unlike Roseanne Barr, she hates Trump, so patently insincere lip service is sufficient to keep her from losing her show.
Meanwhile, female celebrities such as Sally Field and Minnie Driver took to Twitter, trying to come up with rationalizations for why it’s okay to use the “C-word” to attack certain women. As some conservative commentators noted, after eight months of the MeToo movement, prominent Hollywood women are now suggesting that if you don’t agree with a woman’s politics, it’s okay to denigrate her and reduce her to an obscene sexist slur because she “has it coming.” I wonder if Harvey Weinstein's lawyer will use that as part of his defense.
Of course, there was also the claim that Donald Trump is to blame for Bee’s outburst because he's personally “lowered the tone of public discourse.” I had no idea he had so much control over the culture back in 2008, when “Chimpy McBushHitler,” as I believe they called him, was President, and Democrats were wearing T-shirts calling Sarah Palin the exact same sexist slur Ms Bee used against Ivanka.
And before we leave this latest example of double standards, there’s one more twist worthy of mention. Over the weekend, I interviewed rising conservative star Ben Shapiro on my TBN TV show. Like me, he agreed that Roseanne should have lost her show over her racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett. But he pointed out (and even her friend Bill Maher made the same observation) that Roseanne is admittedly mentally ill. She’s discussed having multiple personality disorder (seven at last count), and once accused her parents of incest and then later reeled that back, revealing she’d been on psychiatric drugs at the time.
That’s no excuse for the tweet, but she did sincerely apologize for making a dumb mistake on Twitter when she was alone at 2 a.m., while Bee insincerely apologized for launching an attack on national TV that had to have been vetted by dozens of network staffers. Yet Roseanne is immediately fired and becomes a non-person while Bee keeps her show and gets an award for advancing the cause of women.
I guess the obvious question for Hollywood liberals is this: Why do you hate mentally ill people?
Evening Edition - June 2
By Mike Huckabee
A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
- Hebrews 11:1