THE EVENING EDITION
BY MIKE HUCKABEE
Good evening! Blessings on you and your family and from all the Huckabee staff! Thank you for subscribing and I hope you enjoy today’s newsletter.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the Lord will give you, Judah and Jerusalem. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Go out to face them tomorrow, and the Lord will be with you.
2 Chronicles 20:17 NIV
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
The meltdown continues
It isn’t just Antifa nutjobs and Hollywood celebrities having mental meltdowns over the SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s also people in allegedly responsible positions in government. Like Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra, who hinted on NBC that the HHS might provide transportation assistance to people to travel to other states to get abortions under the guise of “health,” then coyly added, “Talk to me later” because he couldn't say this on camera.
As Republicans quickly pointed out, he’d better not be saying it anywhere, because the Hyde Amendment bars using federal funds to facilitate abortions, and that would be a blatant violation of federal law. Not that Becerra cares: he’s totally unqualified for his job, but he got it because he was the California Attorney General who was so in the pocket of Planned Parenthood that he prosecuted undercover reporters on felony charges for exposing their practices.
And then there’s Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who dreams of becoming President. She went on a tirade against the Supreme Court, calling for killing the Senate filibuster and destroying the SCOTUS as we know it so it can be packed with liberal activists.
Remember the good old days, when we were assured that “Democratic” socialists like Warren weren’t really socialists. No, socialists were those tyrants who tried to destroy democracy and rig the system so their opponents were silenced and powerless and they always got their way and were cemented in power forever, like in Cuba or Venezuela. And she’s NOTHING like that.
And if that’s not crazy enough for you, she also wants to turn our national parks into baby-killing centers filled with federal abortion tents. No, as this story takes pains to point out, this is not from the Babylon Bee.
Amazon’s woke employees demand change
Apparently, it’s not enough for some Amazon employees that the company has joined many others in announcing it will pay for workers to travel to get abortions (sorry…”reproductive health care.” The kind where the baby dies.) Several hundred employees signed an open letter with a list of demands that so reeks of wokeness, arrogance and leftwing snowflake entitlement that it’s getting deservedly ridiculed.
Among the workers’ many demands: that Amazon stop doing business in pro-life states, that it “publicly and unequivocally renounce” the overturning of Roe v. Wade, that it cease any support or donations to any politician or group who opposes abortion, and my favorite, that it “allow employees of all genders the space and time to grieve, express their frustrations, and protest against this assault on our rights.” So male employees could demand paid time off to “grieve” over abortion being restricted? I’d love to know where they’ll be doing this alleged grieving. Will they be wearing black to the golf course?
Bob Hoge of Redstate has a great article at the link above, dispatching each of their “demands” in logical and amusing fashion. Another critic made an excellent point that Amazon has over a million employees, which means that the 300 who signed this list of “demands” represent a tiny fraction of 1%. Or to put that in other terms, an easily-replaceable number of workers.
Risky claims about abortion
Say, remember the pandemic, where if you even questioned the current government proclamations about COVID (even if you later turned out to be right), you’d be accused of spreading dangerous health misinformation and get banned from social media? How come there are so many liberal blue checks still on Twitter, even though they’re dispensing wildly inaccurate claims about abortion, some of which could seriously endanger people’s health?
Paula Bolyard at PJ Media has a must-read fact-check on these menaces to public health and the numerous lies and dangerous bits of bad medical advice they’re giving to women in an attempt to promote abortion -- particularly the bogus claim that anti-abortion laws will criminalize women who lose a baby due to a miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or septic uterus. One Tennessee OBGYN replied that in 30 years of practice, the vast majority of septic uteri he’s dealt with have been post-abortion complications.
Read it all and be prepared to refute this nonsense when it’s inevitably thrown at you online.
CNN commentator Ana Navarro is under fire for defending abortion by citing her own relatives with special needs whom she claimed have been such a drain on their parents. Horrified viewers believed she was suggesting these people would be better off having never been born. Navarro deflected, claiming she was really arguing that states that ban abortion should “step up and provide services” for poor, disabled and abused kids.
Okay, except that’s not what she said. The context was a discussion about abortion, not social services. For the record, I have known a number of people with autism and Down's Syndrome who are some of the most amazing and inspiring people I’ve ever met. Yes, the parents of disabled and special needs children often face enormous challenges, and God bless them for what they do. But I have never met any of them who wish they’d snuffed out their child’s life. I’d like to hear what Ms Navarro’s relatives who are the parents of those children have to say about her comments.
NYT Caught Lying
The “paper of record,” the New York Times, got caught lying to readers that the Supreme Court banned abortion, then quietly tried to edit it in hopes no one would notice. Didn’t work.
Honesty may be more persuasive than transparent lies
Yesterday, I wrote of how the left is dealing with all their recent losses, particularly Roe v. Wade, by going through the stages of grief. Most seem to be stuck in “anger,” but a few are finally breaking through to “acceptance.” Or at least, to recognizing that bullying people, silencing opposing views, screaming profanities, acting like lunatics and demanding that the system be rigged so that they always get their way might not be a winning strategy for elections or for making friends and influencing people.
For instance, one leftist feminist writer recently floated the idea that all these euphemisms they make up for abortion – “choice,” “women’s reproductive health,” etc. – were a bad idea. They should have acknowledged that it’s an abortion and something dies, then argued why that was acceptable. That’s sick, but at least it’s honest, which is a step forward for the “pro-choice” movement (that euphemism is doubly dishonest because they recognize only one choice.)
She’s right: the dishonest euphemists do undermine their case. I’ve been pointing out for years that if they really believed their stance on abortion was morally correct, they’d quit trying to hide what they were actually talking about under blankets of ever-changing fuzzy euphemisms.
Now, here’s another example of how it might be gradually dawning on the left that honesty may be more persuasive than transparent lies.
Black liberal writer Erika Smith stirred controversy with an article for the Los Angeles Times about a recent SCOTUS decision titled “Is California Ready for Black People to Carry Guns in Public?” Twitter mobs rushed to declare the headline racist, but she makes some good points. She writes about how many law-abiding black people in California have reacted to the crime wave by buying guns to protect themselves and their families. They follow all the laws, learn gun safety, practice at target ranges and form their own gun clubs because they don't trust the NRA.
But they wonder if all the talk about needing more gun laws to get around the SCOTUS ruling isn’t fueled by white liberals being nervous about black people having guns. Wow, admitting that gun control laws may be partially inspired by white Democrats' fear of armed black people? That's a breakthrough. It's also not news to anyone who knows the history of gun control laws.
Being a liberal, Ms Smith has to throw in some eye-rollers here and there, like claiming that the January 6th rioters were “white supremacists,” and that blacks feel they need guns to protect themselves from the rising threat of Christian nationalists and white supremacists. News flash: those are not the people making black neighborhoods dangerous. She also repeats the canard popular on the left about how the NRA would change their minds if blacks started buying guns.
In fact, at a time when the KKK was burning black neighborhoods and racist Democrat officials and police in the South wouldn’t stop them, the NRA was one of the few civils rights organizations that stood up for black people's right to own guns to protect themselves. Today, I don’t know any conservative gun owners who have a problem with law-abiding Americans of any race being responsible gun owners. They might even try attending a meeting of the NRA sometime, I have a feeling they’d discover it’s nothing like what they’ve been led to believe.
But caveats aside, it’s a very interesting article that makes a lot of great points, none of which will be surprising to my readers. Like that the Party that gave us the Confederacy, the KKK and Jim Crow laws still harbors a secret fear that black Americans will stop listening to them and start demanding all their Constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment ones.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY:
Thank you for reading my newsletter.
For more news, visit my website.