The House may no longer be interested in why the Robert Mueller investigation is emitting a powerful smell of fermenting fish, but at least the Senate is demanding to know why our alleged sober public servants are producing reckless and unnecessary political theater that tramples all over the Constitution, proper legal procedure, common sense and basic human decency.
It’s absolutely astounding to me to see the people who are voting for the current rash of “aborting babies up to the moment of birth” laws cheering, celebrating and congratulating themselves on their great “progressive” victory. I don’t want to believe that these people, who seem to think they’re doing a compassionate service for women, are just cold-blooded, stone-hearted monsters. Why are they unable to grasp the repulsiveness of what they’re doing?
I know this is an outgrowth of a lifetime of brainwashing themselves into believing that a baby in the womb isn’t really a human being, and that a woman’s decision to abort is something that’s solely about HER body and only affects HER, when it’s really the killing of a separate and distinct human life. But how can they continue to cling to that slender reed of rationalization even as they promote the right to withhold medical care from a baby that was already born during an abortion and is now living and breathing completely separate from its mother’s body? How clear does murder have to be before they recognize it for what it is?
At this link is a story about a doctor who performed 22 abortions until something happened during the 23rd that changed his mind and heart, and he just couldn’t do it anymore. I warn you, this story is graphic and disturbing, but maybe some people have to see the ugly unvarnished truth to shock them out of their cozy cocoon of denial.
This story is also in line with something very interesting that was told to me by pro-life activist Shawn Carney during an interview for my TBN show (see it at the link.) He said when it comes to abortion, conversion is a one-way street. In all his years of dealing with this issue, he’s met countless people who've had abortions or worked in abortion clinics or fought for abortion rights who all became pro-life. But he said he’s never seen a single person who was once pro-life but became convinced that view was wrong and turned pro-abortion.
I think it's because once you see the light, it's very hard to go back to living in darkness.
Latest update on the story of the alleged assault on gay black actor Jussie Smollett in Chicago by two men yelling that he was in “MAGA country” (again…Chicago?)
The fact that the details of the story keep changing and the evidence seems awfully elusive didn’t stop many liberals from immediately blaming President Trump and his supporters. Personally, I’m going to do something nearly unheard of in the 21st century: I’m going to wait until we know for sure what – if anything – really happened before I comment on it any further.
Tweet of the Day! Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who went straight from tending bar to Congress, compared the criticism of herself to Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, tweeting, “Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to ‘work their way up’ or that ‘maybe they should start with city council first’?”
That’s not the tweet of the day, this response from Dana Loesch is: “Schultz grew up in the projects, was the first of his family to go to college, and turned a tiny coffeeshop into a multi-billion dollar company. How much more should he ‘work his way up?’”
It was kind of her not to mention that Schultz, like Trump, has had many years of successful executive experience and has created countless jobs, traveled to and dealt with officials in foreign countries and bureaucrats at all levels of government, and successfully navigated economic times both good and bad. All of those should count as qualifications for the Presidency. AOC, on the other hand (OTOH), went straight to Congress with a background consisting entirely of college and bartending, and judging from her public statements, none of those provided any qualifications for her current job. For her, a run for city council actually would have made a lot more sense.
I’ve always found the Democrats’ ever-shifting definitions of “qualifications” for office to be an interesting point of study. We used to think that being a successful Governor was the best qualification for the Presidency, until various Senators with no executive or solo decision-making experience at all started running. Now, "qualifications" seem to be completely subjective and change on a case-by-case basis.
In 2016, we were told that Trump, with decades of international executive experience behind him, was totally unqualified. But in 2008, we were told that Barack Obama was the most qualified person ever to run for President, more qualified even than Thomas Jefferson, despite having not five minutes of executive, management, military, foreign policy or private sector experience, and being only a third of the way through his first Senate term. When pressed to name his experience at running anything, his spokespeople pointed to how well he ran his presidential campaign. Little did we know that once elected, that’s just what we’d get: an eight-year campaign.
The Founders obviously didn’t intend for us to elect only lifelong professional politicians (for their first President, they picked a military general.) The only requirements they put in the Constitution for President were being at least 35 years old and a native-born citizen. They also didn’t want lifelong politicians in Congress, but people who would come from the private sector, put in a couple of years of public service, then go home to live under the laws they created. So the good news for AOC is that they would have been fine with electing a bartender from the Bronx. Let’s hope she is equally down with their idea of going home after two years.
By the way, I’m not in any way endorsing the idea of Howard Schultz being President. But I’m fine with him running if he’ll pull votes away from Kamala Harris or whatever government-bloating, power-mad leftist micromanager the Democrats end up nominating. If one of them wins, Americans may need a lot more bartenders. But I don’t drink, so that won’t help me.
Okay, liberal pundits, just keep repeating: “Voter fraud doesn’t exist, and voter ID laws are just a needless obstruction to suppress voting rights…”
California Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier has nominated Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for a “Profiles In Courage” Award. I will nominate Rep. Spiere for one of those if she dares to read all the reactions to this on her Twitter account.
Probably not the best way for a Republican to ingratiate himself with Republicans or the Trump White House. And no Republicans is going to win over Colbert viewers because that’s impossible.
I will say in Chris Christie’s defense that it’s not controversial for a 2016 Presidential candidate to think he would have been a better choice than Trump. None of us would have been standing on the debate stage if we didn’t think that we were the best choice of that field for President. But after the candidate is chosen – and more than two years after Election Day – it’s past time to accept the will of the voters. Stephen Colbert and his viewers obviously aren’t the only one who need to realize that.
Video Link: Excellent segment by Tucker Carlson on various walls around the world that are working exactly as intended and that Democrats apparently don’t think are immortal. Bonuses: a list of liberal celebrities and politicians who have walls around their mansions, plus quotes from the Pope criticizing Trump’s wall proposal next to a photo of the giant wall around the Vatican.
Huck’s Criminal Masterminds of the Day: If you’re trying to smuggle a dozen foreign nationals illegally into the US on a small fishing boat, it’s not a great idea to try to land at a US Naval Weapons Station.
From the “Huckabee” show’s resident pop culture guru, Pat Reeder (http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodhifibook):
The music world has lost one of its strongest and most distinctive voices: James Ingram died Thursday at 66, reportedly of brain cancer. His voice was an integral part of the sophisticated, “smooth” pop/soul/jazz sound of the ‘80s, and his songs crossed over to top the R&B, pop and adult contemporary charts.
In 1981, Ingram was a session keyboard player and singer when Quincy Jones heard one of his demos and asked him to sing a few tracks on his album, “The Dude,” which went on to score 12 Grammy nominations and three wins. Three nominations were for Ingram’s tracks. He won for Best R&B Male Vocal Performance for “One Hundred Ways” and scored a rare Best New Artist nomination before he’d even released a solo album.
Some of his other hits that will immediately leap to mind when you hear the titles include “Just Once” from “The Dude; his hit duets with Patti Austin, “Baby, Come to Me” and “How Do You Keep The Music Playing;” and Grammy’s 1986 Song Of The Year, “Somewhere Out There,” the classic duet with Linda Ronstadt from the animated movie, “An American Tail.” Just about every musician of the era wanted to work with Ingram: some of his other famous partners included Kenny Rogers, Kim Carnes, Michael McDonald, Ray Charles, Anita Baker, Donna Summer, Natalie Cole and the chorus of superstars on “We Are The World.”
Ingram was also an accomplished songwriter who worked a great deal in movie soundtracks. He and Quincy Jones co-wrote Michael Jackson’s mega-hit, “P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing),” and two of his movie theme songs were Oscar-nominated.
I’m sure there will have to be a tribute to Ingram at this year’s Grammy Awards. Pardon my editorializing, but you'll know it's on when someone in your family hears the TV from the next room and says, "Hey, they're actually playing some real music!"