|December 10, 2020|
Good evening! Today's Evening Edition includes:
- News That Doesn’t Surprise Me In The Least
- Not journalism
- New hearings
- What you need to know about the Texas lawsuit
News That Doesn’t Surprise Me In The Least
By Mike Huckabee
A new Gallup poll found that the only group whose mental health improved during the coronavirus pandemic was people who attended religious services weekly. The percentage of churchgoers who reported their mental health as “excellent” actually rose from 42% in 2019 to 46% in 2020. For the population overall, that figure dropped from 43% to 34% during the pandemic.
The director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty explained that for people of faith, attending church during that trying period provided them with strength, community and meaning. One might almost say it was …ESSENTIAL.
Maybe the fact that going to church helps keep people mentally healthy is the reason why so many Democrat politicians are trying to bar it. A mentally healthy electorate is not good for the careers of politicians like Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer and Andrew Cuomo.
By Mike Huckabee
It’s been said that journalism is the first draft of history. But what do you call it when news outlets refuse to write the first draft at all, and then when the story becomes impossible to ignore (or the election they were trying to game has passed), they finally cover it by rewriting history? Whatever you call that, I certainly wouldn’t call it journalism. But that’s precisely what they did with the Hunter Biden story.
For months, they buried it, censored anyone who tried to cover it, and when pressed on why, dismissed it as rumors, Russian disinformation, or a non-story. Now that they think they’ve safely dragged Joe Biden across the finish line, and it’s been confirmed that his son Hunter is under federal investigation, they’re grasping for straws in trying to explain why they didn’t do their duty and report on it. Their first attempt at a lame excuse is that they didn't cover it because the story “went largely unnoticed” before the election. No, it was noticed; it just went largely unreported by so-called “journalists” who are actually unpaid PR agents for the Democratic Party.
Here’s an honest question that I want these reporters to answer: Since you told us that Hunter Biden’s foreign government financial scandals were just disinformation and so people should be censored from talking about them, only for us to learn now that it was a real story and you were completely wrong…then why in the world should we believe you when you tell us that vote fraud affecting the election results is just false disinformation and so people should be censored from talking about it?
I anxiously await your feeble excuse for that.
By Mike Huckabee
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee announced that it will hold a hearing on December 16 into alleged irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson said that while many of the issues are being resolved in courts, a large percentage of Americans don’t view the results as legitimate and “that is not a sustainable state of affairs for our country…The only way to resolve suspicions is with full transparency and public awareness. That will be the goal of the hearing.”
So, he’s saying that to prevent a dark cloud of suspicion from hovering over whoever eventually prevails, we need a full and transparent investigation to reassure Americans that the election was legitimate. If only someone had urged Joe Biden to call for one of those right after the election, then all the Democrats who claim there was no vote fraud could have proved it by now and that cloud of suspicion might have already dissipated.
Oh, wait, that’s right: I called on him to do that, and I got blasted for it. The Dems preferred instead to fight letting people examine the evidence and let the media call people who were suspicious stupid and crazy, while social media censors anyone who questions them. Well, that’s certainly helping make the suspicions go away, isn’t it?
What you need to know about the Texas lawsuit
By Mike Huckabee
All 50 states have now certified their votes, but the electors have yet to meet. As of this writing, Arizona has become the 18th state to join Texas’ lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, seeking to force them to allow their legislators to choose the slate of electors.
If you look at the states that have joined the lawsuit blocked out on a map, it looks like about half the landmass of the US. I would hope that would make the SCOTUS reluctant to simply turn them down, because it’s obvious that the fury over the voting practices in, basically, four Democrat-run cities, is rising; and we’ve already learned it’s not going away just because the people are told, “You’re wrong, shut up.”
If you do a Google search for the Texas lawsuit, you get back a lot of sneering articles from liberal media outlets dismissing it as a “Hail Mary” pass or a “doomed stunt.” But I assume that my readers would rather get factual information than overheated opinions masquerading as news. So I’m referring you to this excellent analysis in the Federalist by Margot Cleveland, who spent 25 years as a law clerk to a federal appellate court judge.
She explains clearly what the lawsuit says, what the basis of it is (including quotes from case precedents that make it obvious that this is something the Court should address), and why Texas and the other states have standing to claim that they have been damaged by the actions of the states they’re suing. And despite what you’re hearing from other media outlets, she’s impressed by what an excellent job the Texas Attorney General’s office did in writing this lawsuit.
You should read the whole article, but here are just four of the major points you’re probably not hearing from most media outlets:
1. This case doesn’t hinge on showing evidence of vote fraud, which could have been wiped or shredded by now. It’s based on the defendant states letting officials unilaterally change voting laws that only the legislature has the power to change, which means the vote tallies, whether fraudulent or not, were derived through illegal and unconstitutional means. In this case, the argument doesn’t depend on whether fraud can be proven beyond a doubt, but on the undeniable fact that laws that made fraud easier to commit were created unconstitutionally.
2. Texas is not asking that the election be handed to Trump. They are asking the Court to order the states to give the duty of selecting electors to their legislatures because that’s what is required under the Constitution when the vote is tainted by illegal and unconstitutional actions, which the lawsuit clearly describes (for instance, officials unilaterally changing ballot laws that can only be changed by the legislature, or imposing different standards for accepting ballots in Democrat-run counties than in Republican counties.) The legislatures are free to choose Trump or Biden electors, but at least then, the choice will be made legally.
3. Texas has standing to sue the other states over this because, just as the House represents individual citizens, the Senate represents states. The national election also picks the Vice President, who settles any tie votes. That means that any illegal actions that affect the results of this election also affect all states through control of the Senate.
4. As for the argument that the SCOTUS would be taking unprecedented action to interfere in a national election, the suit cites numerous quotes showing precedent for the plaintiff’s arguments.
It sounds as if the SCOTUS might have a harder time simply dismissing this case than media people who haven't read it do.
BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY