Call in the kids and round up the neighbors, another jam-packed new episode of “Huckabee” is coming your way tonight on TBN! My newsmaker guests include the very first US Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, Sam Brownback; and Jim Bridenstine from NASA talks about all the miraculous high tech we enjoy thanks to breakthroughs made by the space program. We’ll take a look at the news you might have missed and pay a visit to the Bunny Museum (no, they’re not Playboy bunnies). We’ll have music from country star Lucas Hoge plus a rock classic by Uncle Si from “Duck Dynasty” and his band, the Sicotics! Someone might also try to shoot an apple off my head with an arrow, if I’m psychotic enough to agree. To find out, tune in “Huckabee” at 8 EST, 7 CST. To find out where you can watch TBN in your local area, and to see clips and complete past shows, visit https://www.tbn.org/programs/huckabee
Happy Cinco de Mayo, everyone! In the US, it’s become a general celebration of Mexican-American culture, but this holiday actually began as a commemoration of the Mexican Army’s victory over the French at the battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. That’s right, all you ultra-sensitive, ROTC-hating college students: you’re celebrating a military victory. But I assume that by this time of day, you’re already too bombed on margaritas, Dos Equis and tequila to care.
In a post yesterday, I made reference to the various news outlets that went on a blood-in-the-water feeding frenzy over the NBC scoop that President Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen had been wiretapped…only to have to reel in their hysteria a couple of hours later when NBC retracted the story (turns out Cohen's call records were monitored but his conversations were not recorded.) Among the ones I chided in passing for their “breathless” reaction to this non-scoop was CNN. Apparently, this greatly upset them (Really? Being called “breathless” is the worst thing they’ve heard about CNN lately?) because I got a lot of grief over that. Critics attacked me, saying that CNN hadn’t run with that story and accusing me of making up “fake news” about fake news.
Admittedly, like most people, I see CNN these days only when stuck in airports (as if long layovers aren’t aggravating enough.) But I did see a clip that certainly made it appear that CNN discussed the story and aired some pretty breathless reactions. I direct your attention to the third clip in this montage from Laura Ingraham’s Thursday show, starting at the 5:58 mark:
I think that proves that my comment about CNN was made in good faith. If anyone has proof that Fox News fabricated that clip or took it wildly out of context so that it was not what it appeared to be, then I’ll cheerfully retract my jibe and apologize. But if not, then I will cheerfully suggest that all the people who tried to impugn the integrity of me and my staff go pound sand.
Speaking of this latest “fake news” fiasco, I’d like to point out that my small band of staffers and I knew about that NBC story the minute it hit the wires, but you’ll notice we didn’t rush to post a comment on it. That was because it didn’t pass our smell test from the get-go. We were skeptical of the alleged sources, reluctant to give credence to such a bombshell on such flimsy grounds, and we’ve seen that some media outlets will rush to air with anything that reflects badly on Trump then check the facts later. In other words, my little Internet site has higher journalistic standards than NBC and a better nose for rancid cheese. So when it was retracted, we didn’t have to retract it, too, because we were never gullible enough to run it in the first place.
And how is it possible that such nice, sweet folk as us could be so cynical about this particular subject? Chalk it up to experience:
I recently let Earth Day pass without notice, not because I don’t like the Earth (it’s one of my favorite tourist destinations), but because I’m usually too busy doing things like going out into the woods to hunt and fish to get in my SUV and drive to a big Earth Day event at some electric-powered convention center along with thousands of other people to celebrate the environment by leaving behind tons of litter. If you think I’m suggesting that conservatives who are skeptical of outspoken environmentalists are more Earth-friendly than outspoken environmentalists, well…yes. Yes, I am. And now, the science is settled!
A year-long study by University of Michigan psychologist Michael Hall found that people who are skeptical of climate change claims and opposed to government policy to affect the climate are actually the most likely to engage in eco-friendly individual actions, such as recycling, buying "green" products, and using public transportation and reusable shopping bags. On the other hand, those who believe most strongly in manmade climate change and government action to combat it are the least likely to do anything personally to help the environment.
The researchers aren’t sure why, but they theorize that conservatives believe in individual responsibility (and the root of their name is “conservation”), while virtue-signaling environmentalists are exhibiting what psychologists call “moral licensing.” They think that speaking out about the issue and calling for the government to do something about it buys them moral brownie points that give them license not to do anything themselves. Sort of like how lecturing everyone else to live in trees buys you the moral authority to travel to eco-conferences at five-star resorts on private jets and live in a big, energy-sucking mansion on the coast.
This isn’t really as surprising as it seems. It’s of a piece with the general dichotomy between conservatives and liberals, as seen in studies that show that liberals demand that the government raise the minimum wage while conservatives tip better; or that liberals demand more government programs to help the poor while conservatives give far more of their own money to charity. Putting your own money and effort into a pet cause is hard. Demanding that somebody else’s money be spent on your pet cause is easy. But I’ll say this for the latter: it obviously results in a very strong sense of self-satisfaction.
Say, remember when Democrats were trying to accuse President Trump and his associates of violating the Logan Act by talking to or even publicly addressing Russia? That’s a very old law that bars private citizens from acting on behalf of the United States during a dispute with another country (in other words, trying to interfere with official government foreign policy by conducting it on your own). That law has resulted in only one charge and never been successfully prosecuted, but that didn’t deter Trump’s critics from claiming it was going to send him to prison.
Well, if so, then why aren’t they calling for John Kerry to get measured for a Saville Row tailored orange prison jump suit? Because it seems to me that openly trying to undermine official government foreign policy on the Iran nuclear deal by acting as a shadow Secretary of State would definitely fall under the Logan Act.
President Trump announced Friday during his speech to the NRA convention in Dallas that a date and place are now set for the summit to denuclearize North Korea, and they’ll be revealed soon. At the link, a round-up of the latest developments on the Korean situation. I’ll also add this quote, which I’m sure the NRA members especially appreciated:
"With respect to North Korea, remember how strong it was when they were saying, ‘This is going to be nuclear war. We're going to have nuclear.' No. You know what gets you nuclear war? Weakness gets you nuclear war. Being weak gets you nuclear war…"
Speaking of Trump’s appearance before the NRA convention, he said some things after the Florida school shooting that caused friction with Second Amendment defenders such as the NRA, but his comments in Dallas may have helped smooth that over. Check out the video and the quotes at the link.
After railing for months against the GOP tax cuts and claiming that only a small sliver of the tax savings would go to employees and most would be used by the rich corporate fat cat owners for stock dividends and buybacks, the New York Times announced that its own taxes dropped by about half, a savings of over $5 million. So are they going to give it back to the IRS as a “voluntary contribution?” No, of course not. Guess what they are going to do with it. Go on, guess. Here’s a hint: a small sliver of it is going to one place and most is going to another.
PLEASE LEAVE ME A COMMENT. I READ THEM!
OR IF YOU WOULD PREFER TO SEND ME A MESSAGE, GO HERE.