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 --- The Clinton Machine guided FBI into Trump/Russia investigation -- James Baker WANTED to indict Hillary for "appalling" conduct -- SCOTUS decides to not consider an appeal by Joseph Kennedy -- SCOTUS takes up gun rights case -- Fun read -- President Trump's State of the Union address -- Ainsworth: Leftists, this is no way to honor Dr. King -- Holy Love -- Evening Edition -- Daily Verse
The Clinton Machine.
Being from the world of Arkansas politics, I know what that is: an entrenched group of powerful Bill-and-Hillary loyalists. In the old days, they were called “F.O.B.,” for Friends Of Bill. Always a force to be reckoned with, the group metastasized over the decades into a mechanism that reached virtually everywhere, even around the world.
To have an idea of how connected, moneyed, powerful and intimidating the Clinton Machine became, think back to her 2016 run for her party’s nomination for President. While the Republicans had a healthy 17 primary candidates --- so many, they had to split us into two groups for the debates --- Hillary ran in the Democratic primaries almost unopposed, as the Anointed One.
No one within the Democratic Party with a realistic chance of winning dared challenge her.
James Baker WANTED to indict Hillary for "appalling" conduct
By Mike Huckabee
That was former FBI general counsel James Baker’s description of the “investigation” into Hillary Clinton’s private email server when he testified before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees last October. This knowledge is based on transcripts that haven’t been released to the public but that were “obtained” (hmm) for a damning new report by Jeff Carlson in the Epoch Times.
“My original belief...after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her material, I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged,” Baker testified.
SCOTUS decides to not consider an appeal by Joseph Kennedy
By Mike Huckabee
The Supreme Court decided not to consider an appeal by Joseph Kennedy, who was fired from his job as a high school football coach in Bremerton, Washington, for praying with students on the field after games. In 2017, the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to reinstate Kennedy on First Amendment grounds of religious discrimination, ruling that he was acting as a public employee and not a private citizen when he prayed on the field immediately after games in school-logoed attire and in front of parents and students.
A panel of the same court also rejected his request for a rehearing, saying that he "had a professional responsibility to communicate demonstratively to students and spectators and he took advantage of his position to press his particular views upon the impressionable and captive minds before him."
(I think it should be noted that those judges have a strange definition of “captive minds,” considering this happened after the games were over and any students who joined him in praying did so voluntarily.)
While the Supreme Court decided not to hear his appeal, there is a silver lining. In explaining the rejection, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the 9th Circuit’s understanding of public school teachers' free speech rights was "troubling" (I’d add, as is their understanding of the First and Second Amendments in general.) Alito also stated that "denial of certiorari does not signify that the Court necessarily agrees with the decision" of lower courts, which "should have made a specific finding as to what petitioner was likely to be able to show regarding the reason or reasons for his loss of employment."
Specifically, he said it should be established whether Kennedy was fired for violating his duties as a public employee or exercising his religious beliefs as a private citizen. It must be determined whether, after a game, he was still expected to be supervising students, so that taking time out to pray was neglecting his duties…or were his duties finished, so it would have permissible for him to engage in other private conduct, such as calling for dinner reservations. Under that scenario, I think he could argue that securing a place in Heaven should be at least as constitutionally protected as securing a table at TGI Friday’s.
Kennedy’s attorneys are optimistic for a future appeal, now that the SCOTUS has scolded the lower court and given them a road map of what they need to do. This isn’t over, so keep praying – but only on your own time, of course!
SCOTUS takes up gun rights case
By Mike Huckabee
In other Supreme Court news, the SCOTUS agreed to hear an appeal in the first gun rights case they’ve taken up in nine years.
It’s a challenge by three New York residents backed by the NRA to New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside the city limits. Under the law, licensed gun owners may only remove their guns from the addresses on the license to take them to authorized shooting ranges and clubs.
One of the plaintiffs says the law bars him from taking his licensed weapon to his second home in Handcock, New York, to protect his family when they’re there. The plaintiffs argue that New York City’s ban violates both the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution that gives the US Congress the power to regulate what can be transported across state lines.
This case, which likely won’t be heard until next October, could prove very significant. The last time the SCOTUS heard a gun rights case in 2010, it affirmed that the Second Amendment means that individual citizens (not just “well-regulated militia” members) have the right to keep a gun in their homes. Since then, a number of liberal local governments have tried to get around that right by inventing ever-more-restrictive laws. A ruling against New York city's law could establish a precedent for challenging others. And the current Court includes Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh in place of the unpredictable “swing” vote, Anthony Kennedy, so prospects for that are even better.
Click the link for more, and to read what Justice Clarence Thomas had to say about public officials who dismiss the right of citizens to bear arms for self-defense as “antiquated and superfluous” while they’re guarded constantly by armed police.
By Mike Huckabee
Fun Read: One of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” that the left loves to employ against conservatives is “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Everyone occasionally falls short of his or her highest standards, and the left loves to use any conservative’s shortfalls to denounce the person’s character and dismiss the validity of their entire cause or belief system.
But two can play at that game. Since the left has recently tried to dismiss the validity of age-old truths and standards by accusing the people who defend them of just wanting to preserve their “privilege,” the Washington Free Beacon decided to assess the level of “privilege” enjoyed or suffered by all the announced and potential Democratic Presidential candidates (so far…I’m sure this list will grow exponentially.)
This is probably meant to be humorous, but today’s satire is tomorrow’s headline. I fully expect the Democratic race to devolve quickly into a lot of finger-pointing over who has the most or least “privilege” (it’s not like many of them can argue over who has the most qualifications), so this will provide you with a scorecard to help keep up when the vicious intraparty tweets starting flying.
President Trump's State of the Union Address
By Mike Huckabee
President Trump’s State of the Union Address is still set for next Tuesday, but Speaker Pelosi continues to play childish games to prevent him from coming to the Capitol. She's still claiming that there is a security risk due to the government shutdown that she and Chuck Schumer are personally responsible for continuing (FYI: the security agencies are funded and the Secret Service has had security plans in place for months.) If the House had no security, Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be there – although, come to think of it, between her vacation in Hawaii, her attempted junket to Europe and the Middle East, and her refusal to meet with the President to negotiate an end to the shutdown, she does seem to be trying awfully hard to avoid coming to work.
But while the Constitution requires the President to report on the State of the Union, there’s no law that says he has to do it in front of a bunch of sneering Democrats who refuse to do their jobs. And he has no shortage of invitations from people who would be happy to host him. If he doesn’t do it from the White House or the Senate, he already has offers from lawmakers in North Carolina and Michigan to come give the State of the Union Address there.
I’m sure they would love the national attention, and appreciate that Trump provided it. The crowd would certainly be friendlier than in the House. Those are also states that he’ll want to win in 2020, and what could be a better background for the State of the Union Address under Trump than focusing attention on states that are benefiting from his economic reforms and deregulation efforts instead of speaking from the epicenter of partisan malice, where “Russia! Russia! Russia!” routinely drowns out “Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!”? He could give his message of optimism unimpeded to a cheering crowd in a swing state, while back in DC, Pelosi and her minions can sit around looking like they’re sucking lemons and not appearing on TV at all.
I can understand why House Democrats are so in favor of strict gun control. They need it to stop them from repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot.
Ainsworth: Leftists, this is no way to honor Dr. King
By Laura Ainsworth, Staff writer
"We have a hater in the White House. The Birther-In-Chief. The Grand Wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. One of the things that we’ve learned is that while Jim Crow may be dead, he’s still got some nieces and nephews that are alive and well.”
It was rhetoric like this that ruled on Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, and Dr. King deserved better. This is absolutely the last straw for me. Though I typically hesitate to comment in print on racial issues because it’s so easy to be misunderstood and end up with protesters screaming in one’s front yard, I just can’t sit by any longer and listen to this. The remark above comparing the President of the United States to a leader of the Ku Klux Klan was made on Monday by Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, at an event supposedly honoring Dr. King, and Rep. Jeffries should be ashamed of himself. Everyone who is spewing atrocities like this should be ashamed. Oh, but they won’t be. They’re proud of themselves for “speaking truth to power,” when what they’re speaking is not truth but just a steaming shovelful.
A newsletter reader facing terminal cancer submitted this beautiful sonnet about how facing death has deepened his faith.
My soul wants to cry for aid
under a lowering sky.
But that's not how this game is played,
for I am marked to die.
The boon of palliative care
was never meant for me;
and it's in no way unfair
because now, on bended knee
I can behold in full a gentle Grace;
pain's opened divinity's door
and gave me glimpse of smiling Face;
how could I ask for more?
The clouds may be so grey above,
but over them, shines Holy Love.
Evening Edition - January 22
By Mike Huckabee
A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!
Daily Verse (KJV)
"Grant thee according to thine own heart,
and fulfil all thy counsel."
– Psalm 20:4
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.