December 5, 2017


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:  Growing distrust of FBI and special counsel -- Biggest news today -- Supreme Court weighs in on travel ban -- Violating the Logan Act?-- The Arkansas Senate race -- The worst bill in history 


ENDORSEMENT:  "Mike, thank you for your fact-based newsletter, and especially for your wonderful sense if humor. You make me laugh out loud.

If you enjoy the newsletter also, please forward it to a friend and tell them they can subscribe for free at


Before the week is up, just about everyone will know how to pronounce the name “Peter Strzok,” because it seems that over and over, almost hour by hour, that unusual name appears in the news, with one more drip-drip of information attached to it.

Peter Strzok is the member of Robert Mueller’s independent counsel team who was taken off the “Trump/Russia” investigation because of strong anti-Trump and pro-Hillary sentiments he expressed in tweets to his mistress, also an employee at the FBI. This happened last July but was hidden till now. At this writing, we still don’t know what was in the tweets, but it apparently was enough to concern Mueller that his investigation might start appearing partisan (!) if he allowed Strzok to remain. Of course, if Mueller were seriously worried about appearing partisan, he wouldn’t have stacked his investigative team with Obama/Hillary donors in the first place, so I imagine he’s still sleeping well at night.


Mike Huckabee


Learn more about RevenueStripe...


Biggest news today

By Mike Huckabee

One of today’s biggest news stories (you know: REAL news stories) will be the Supreme Court finally hearing arguments in the case of a Colorado baker who is being hounded into bankruptcy because he declined to create a same-sex wedding cake that would violate his religious beliefs.  This case will have wide-ranging repercussions, and possibly establish whether a right to same-sex marriage created by a one-vote majority of the SCOTUS outweighs one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the First Amendment.  Incidentally, this is exactly the sort of targeting of religious people that Justice Alito warned against in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case, and that the majority assured us would not happen (it poses “no risk” to third parties, they said.)

The plaintiff’s supporters argue that if the SCOTUS rules against him, it will open the floodgates to government forcing people to violate their religious beliefs, such as ordering doctors at Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.  If anyone thinks that’s just a hysterical understatement, I have five words for you: Little Sisters of the Poor.  The Supreme Court should remember that impoverished charitable order of nuns: they unanimously vacated lower court rulings forcing them to pay for employees’ birth control under Obamacare.


Supreme Court weighs in on travel ban

By Mike Huckabee

Biggest non-fake news of the night: the Supreme Court sided with President Trump over liberal activist federal judges who keep trying to usurp his executive power over national security.  The SCOTUS allowed full enforcement of the latest version of his ban on travel to the US for residents of six nations that are hotbeds of anti-American terrorist activity and have no screening procedures in place.

This has been repeatedly mislabeled as an attack on Muslims, even though there are dozens of predominantly Muslim nations that it does not affect (and Trump unfortunately helped his critics with his retweet of that unvetted video of Muslim violence.)  The full court has yet to hear arguments, but let’s hope this is an indicator that when it does, it will forcefully remind lower court judges that having a gavel doesn’t mean they hold Constitutional power over national security decisions.  There is a reason the Founders entrusted those decisions to the Chief Executive: in times of national emergency (like, say, an international terrorist group announces that it plans to infiltrate immigrant groups and murder millions of us), the President can act swiftly and decisively to prevent it without having to wait for endless debate in Congress -- or for endless appeals of unconstitutional interference by activist federal judges. 


Violating the Logan Act?

By Mike Huckabee

With each passing day, we learn more about the outrageously biased internal machinations of Robert Mueller’s investigative team and the FBI’s selective targeting or non-targeting of DC officials.  Now, Byron York of the Washington Examiner is theorizing that before Donald Trump ever took office, the outgoing Obama Administration was laying a trap for the incoming neophytes, designed to get them to violate the Logan Act.  It’s a constitutionally-shaky law that’s been around for over 200 years, but nobody has ever been prosecuted under it (in fact, there have been only two indictments, the last one in 1852.)  But using the premise that we have so many laws that we all break 10 of them before breakfast without even knowing about it, the entrenched liberals set out to keep the incoming Administration so tied up in investigations and legal entanglements that they would never be able to “drain the swamp” as promised.



Learn more about RevenueStripe...


A different theory as grounds to impeach Trump

By Mike Huckabee

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has a slightly different take.  He attempts to explain why, after spending over $5 million of our money supposedly to investigate “Russian collusion” to affect the election, we’re only seeing process crime charges for things that took place long before or well after the election.  His theory is that Mueller is trying to shift the focus to “obstruction of justice” as grounds to impeach Trump.  

In other words, there’s an attempt to overturn the votes of over 60 million Americans, based on a claim that Trump tried to stop an investigation into Mike Flynn (which he allowed to keep on going, even though he had the unquestionable power to end it for any reason), the same investigation that has so far produced nothing except a charge that Flynn lied about something that wasn’t even illegal. 



The worst bill in history

Over the weekend, we saw various liberal commentators and celebrities rending their garments as they wailed that the GOP tax reform bill that hadn’t even passed Congress yet had already “killed America,” that it was “akin to rape,” that it would cause millions of Americans to die, and that Millennials should immediately flee the country to escape the Apocalyptic consequences.  Perhaps sensing that all that was a bit much even for people who feed on a daily diet of hysterical leftist hooey, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sought to dial it down a bit.  She merely declared it to be “the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress.”

Really?  Just off the top of my head, I can think of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that ushered in the Great Depression; Public Law 503 that sent over 100,000 Japanese-Americans to internment camps; the Indian Removal Act of 1830; the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it a crime to criticize the government; and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which made it a crime to help runaway slaves.  But then, I know that actual American history isn’t a strong suit for our friends on the left, so how about something more recent?  Perhaps Rep. Pelosi has heard of a truly horrible bill oxymoronically dubbed the “Affordable Care Act.”

Oh wait, maybe she just meant the GOP tax bill is the worst bill she’s ever actually read.   Nah, she probably hasn’t read that, either.


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

No Comments