January 8, 2019


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 --- How should the President get funds to build the wall? -- Another way to fund the border wall, Chuck Norris-approved! -- True priorities -- Woods destroys their shaky tower -- Ainsworth: The twisted philosophy of "social justice" -- "Net neutrality" one year later -- Fake campaigns --"Tippy-top"--- Evening Edition -- Daily Verse


If the Democratic Congress refuses to appropriate money for border security that includes a wall, what can Trump do? Alternatives would seem to fall into two areas: 1) declare a national emergency and use the defense budget, and 2) find another source of funding such as confiscated drug money, online donations, etc. Let’s look at 1) right now, with a follow-up tomorrow on 2).

There would definitely be a court challenge, because everything Trump tries to do is met with one. Matt Naham at the Law & Crime website has examined the “national emergency” argument after Trump asserted that he has the power to bypass Congress by declaring a national emergency and building a physical barrier along the border. He quotes a constitutional law expert, University of Texas Law Prof. Steve Vladeck, who said there’s precedent from one 1950s Supreme Court decision that will cause such an attempt to fail.


Mike Huckabee

Commentary continues below advertisement


Another way to fund the border wall, Chuck Norris-approved!

By Mike Huckabee

We talked yesterday about the possibility of President Trump going around Congress to get the money for a border wall by declaring a national emergency and using Defense Department funds to build it.  According to experts, he’s on solid legal ground if he uses construction funds that haven’t already been allocated, though we don’t know if there’s enough non-appropriated money to pay for the entire project.  And he could certainly make the case –- with drug and crime stats alone –- that this is indeed a national emergency, as I expect him to do in his address to the nation from the Oval Office Tuesday evening, the first such address of his presidency.

I like to think he read my newsletter and took my advice to give the address




True priorities

By Mike Huckabee

House Democrats are fast revealing their true priorities, and another one is a bill to require universal background checks for all gun purchases, even those between private individuals.  Regardless of what you think of the wisdom or effectiveness of that, it would be a major government expansion into the private exercise of a fundamental right, akin to requiring a government permit to self-publish a book.  

The bill will probably never make it past the GOP Senate and would likely be struck down as unconstitutional if it did, although with today’s judges, it’s best not to tempt fate in that regard.  But even though it may be a pointless, doomed and unconstitutional waste of time, it signals liberal virtues, so expect it to pass the House by a solid margin.



Woods destroys their shaky tower

By Mike Huckabee

Warning: This post refers to the sort of language that would get most children’s mouths washed out with soap by their mothers, but a certain new Democratic member of Congress not only uses it against the President in front of crowds, but brags about saying it in front of her young son, too.  And the Washington Post tried to defend it.  But James Woods destroyed their entire shaky tower of rationalization with just one deadly tweet.

There are a few things not mentioned in the story about the left's attempt to justify this very public profanity aimed at Trump by saying it’s not as bad as him calling some nations “s***hole countries.”  First of all, unlike her profanity in front of children and crowds, that quote from Trump came from a closed-door meeting that I assume was attended exclusively by adults.  Also, it’s never been established that he actually said it: the claim that he did came from a Democrat with a history of quoting controversial remarks from closed meetings that other attendees denied were ever said, and some at that meeting claim they never heard Trump say it.

Finally, it’s worth noting the phony outrage on the left that greeted the quote from Trump.  As this story shows, they hardly have such delicate ears that a profanity will send them to the fainting couches, as long as it comes from someone they support and is aimed at a political opponent.  Further, their outrage allegedly stemmed from how horrified they were that Trump would suggest that the nations illegal immigrants were fleeing were in any way inferior to our own.  In their eyes, America is responsible for all the evils in the world, and all other cultures are not merely equal to Western culture, but superior to our racist, sexist, colonialist, oppressive ways.  

And yet, when Trump tries to use border security or deportation to return them to their wonderful nations of origin, the same critics assail him for having no compassion because he wants to send them back to places where they may die from all the violence, crime, drugs, disease, starvation, oppression…

Gee, sounds pretty awful!  What word do you think leftists who wholeheartedly defend profanity would use for a place like that?



Commentary continues below advertisement


Ainsworth: The twisted philosophy of "social justice"

By Laura Ainsworth

Have you been perplexed and frustrated to no end by Social Justice Warriors who profess to be fighting racism and sexism while seeming to be the most racist and sexist of all?  The ones who insist they hear “dog whistles” to which we’re not attuned but who don’t hear the sirens they themselves are emitting?  The ones who point fingers but who simply need to look in the closest mirror to see someone obsessed with race, all the while saying it’s impossible for them to be racist?  Let me tell you, I’m sick of it, too.

SJWs have redefined racism and sexism so that, under their definition, they can’t possibly be accused of it.  This view doesn’t make sense at all, except to someone whose brain has been marinating in a concept called intersectionality, which is all over college campuses now but has apparently been around for decades in sociology and gender studies departments.  The only way SJWs could get well-intentioned people to move towards policies that you or I would call racist or sexist was to redefine the terms.  And if you don’t get it, you’re just proving their point by illustrating how clueless you, as a privileged person, are.



"Net neutrality" one year later

By Mike Huckabee

We recently passed the one-year anniversary of the FCC repealing the Obama-era policy of “net neutrality,” which set off a firestorm on the left.  It was claimed that without government regulation, the Internet as we knew it was over.  Consumers would get the shaft as traffic was slowed, blocked and shifted to the highest bidder.  There were protests, lawsuits, and vows that it would be a major Democratic campaign issue.  The FCC chairman even had to cancel a public appearance due to death threats (leftists now send death threats as often as Bed, Bath and Beyond sends out discount coupons.)

So it’s one year later, and what's happened?  Well, the Internet is still here.  There was hardly a mention of net neutrality during the election.  Average internet speeds are up by a third since last year, 23% more homes have access to fiber net, and 5G Internet is promising speeds up to 100 times faster.  The private sector is working fine, and none of the hysterical horror stories came true. 

As IBD notes at the link, there is a threat to the free and open Internet, but it isn’t from ISPs or Republicans on the FCC or lack of federal regulation.  The threats are from big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google, and they’re all run by self-proclaimed liberals.



Fake news

By Mike Huckabee

You heard about the Democratic false-flag misinformation campaign meant to make it look like Russians backed losing Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore?  Well, it appears there was another one, designed to make it falsely appear that he backed Prohibition of alcohol sales. 

Why do Democrats think they have to pay to create fake social media campaigns to slander Republicans as Russian agents and misrepresent their views?  Isn’t that what the real news media is for?



By Mike Huckabee

For those who saw Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on “Sixty Minutes” pushing for a return to 70% tax rates on the “tippy-top” earners (apparently, that’s a math term now used in college economics classes), here’s a handy primer on how tax codes really work and why punishing tax rates result in less revenue to the government, which Democrats like JFK used to understand.


Evening Edition - January 7

By Mike Huckabee

A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!


Daily Verse

"Let all your things be done with charity."

– 1 Corinthians 16:14

Did you miss reading a newsletter recently?  Go to our archive here.


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Comments 1-1 of 1

  • Rafael A Salaz

    01/08/2019 04:42 PM

    It should be a crime for the media or anyone living in the United States , to slander and harass the President of the United States . He is the supreme elected official in command. It seems that , Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have been given the supreme authority to decide for every thing they want . I can’t understand how all this got so turned around . It’s like these two got some kind of black mail on the senate and congress and the people who voted them in that position. Maybe they should be investigated.