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 --- Connect the dots: Bruce Ohr's testimony shows problem with Mueller -- "Wimpy Democrats" -- No censure for King -- Beto: Walls are bad -- IRS: No new audits -- Terrorism is back -- AOC: Primary Democrats -- Time for SCOTUS to face facts -- Evening Edition -- Daily Verse
As impressive as Bill Barr was in many respects during his Tuesday confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee --- particularly his emphasis on equal justice for all --- he did seem to be very much a part of the old guard, and that alone tends to make little alarm bells go off. A longtime friend of Robert Mueller’s, he expressed confidence that Mueller was conducting a legit investigation. When asked if he thought Mueller was on a “witch hunt,” he said no.
But to those of us on the outside looking in, given what we know (even with all the redactions), it seems that Mueller and his team are indeed on a witch hunt. The prosecutors he chose for his team and the tactics they’ve used would strongly suggest that.
Barr has been described as a straight shooter. But then, so has Mueller (by Barr, in fact). I think that very shortly we’re going to find out who at the Justice Department is a straight shooter and who is not, and it may be disappointing if not heartbreaking. Of course, we’ve long suspected that Mueller is no straight shooter, and new revelations from John Solomon reinforce that view. From what Solomon has just learned about Bruce Ohr’s testimony, we can deduce that Mueller has known from the start of his investigation what the FBI was up to with the Steele dossier and even that it came from the Clinton campaign.
By Mike Huckabee
Interesting exchange heard on Fox News: The Democrats are trying to appear reasonable by saying that if Trump will just cave in and reopen the government, then they’ll discuss border security with him. Mollie Hemingway pointed out that the American people have been promised for years that if we let Congress pass one immigration reform after another, they’ll get to border security later, and they never do. She said it’s time for them to do their Constitutional duty.
Brett Baier responded that it’s unlikely they’ll do that with the 2020 election to distract attention. But he observed that according to politicians, we’re always “one election away” from solving problems. I’d add, “Or from Congress doing its Constitutional duty.”
In light of all this, I have a new nickname for the current crop of wall-averse Democrats: “The Wimpy Democrats.” I don’t mean they suffer a severe lack of testosterone, like Gillette wants its customers to. No, I mean like Wimpy from the old “Popeye” cartoons:
"We will gladly give you border security Tuesday for legalizing another 11 million illegal immigrants today!"
No censure for King
By Mike Huckabee
Iowa Rep. Steve King was stripped by fellow Republicans of his committee assignments for his controversial comments about white supremacy and Western civilization (note: he claims his comments were taken out of context and misrepresented), but he will not be censured by the House. The move to censure him was quietly and overwhelmingly shelved – ironically, after top Democratic leaders pressed fellow Democrats to drop it.
Democratic leaders reportedly feared that if they set a precedent of such harsh punishment for controversial speech that it could come back to bite them if Republicans started pulling up things they’ve said and demanding censure votes for those, too. Which is easy to imagine, considering some of the things that have been said just in the past two weeks.
Sounds as if Democrats have learned something from the boomerang that hit them after they wholeheartedly jumped on the “MeToo” bandwagon and demanded that all accusations of sexual harassment and assault should be believed – until the fingers started pointing at them.
Beto: Walls are bad
By Mike Huckabee
Tucker Carlson of Fox News had an interesting segment last night on Texas Senate loser and inexplicable Democratic Presidential frontrunner, Beto O’Rourke.
O’Rourke seems to have a lot of things he feels passionately about, but can’t quite articulate why. One thing he has no use for is walls. In a new interview with the Washington Post, he compared a border security wall to the evils of the Berlin Wall and the walls around World War II Japanese internment camps. But there is a big difference (aside from the Japanese internment camps being built by Democratic icon, Franklin Roosevelt): those walls were built to keep innocent people IN, not to keep intruders out.
O’Rourke also declared that if we build a border wall, “You will ensure death. You and I, as Americans, have caused the deaths of others through these walls." He wasn’t exactly clear on how a wall ever caused the death of anyone other than Humpty Dumpty. But one of his supports tried to make sense of that statement by claiming that the wall would be in the easiest, most traveled parts of the border, which would force people wanting to enter the US illegally to go to the more dangerous, remote areas to get around them, and they might die, and that would be on our heads.
First of all, thanks for acknowledging that walls work. But would we really be "forcing" people to break in at a more dangerous point if made it harder at the easy entry points? If some people choose to risk their lives to enter the US illegally, is it our fault for not making it easier for them to break our laws? By that logic, since doors and windows are our homes' easiest entry points, shouldn’t we take the locks off them so that burglars can come right on in rather than "force" them to risk injury by climbing a ladder to break in through the attic?
With that kind of reasoning, I’m starting to suspect O’Rourke must hate walls because he once skateboarded head-first into one. Incidentally, that is the only way that walls kill anybody.
IRS no new audits
By Mike Huckabee
The IRS announced that during the current partial government shutdown, returns will be accepted and refunds will be paid, but there will be no new audits. If this is meant to panic Americans into demanding the shutdown end, I don’t think it’s gonna work.
Terrorism is back
By Mike Huckabee
Terrorism is suddenly back on the front burner, with the tragic news yesterday of a bomb blast at a restaurant in Manbij, Syria, that killed 15 people, including four Americans: two contractors and two military members. ISIS took credit for the suicide attack.
First and foremost, we should all pray for the victims and for their families. The loss of human life and the pain of the survivors tends to get lost in the rush to make political arguments, but it is the most important part of this story. We extend our deepest condolences to the families, and we pray for the souls of the victims and for comfort for those they leave behind who’ve had their loved ones torn from them in a brutal and senseless attack.
Some Congressional Republicans immediately called on President Trump to reverse his decision to withdraw troops from Syria in light of the attack. This puts me in a unique position: I am already on record from day one as questioning the wisdom of withdrawing, not only because it might create a vacuum for ISIS to fill, but because it might mean abandoning our staunch allies, the Kurds, and the endangered Syrian Christian population to Syria, Turkey and Iran. Yet I don’t believe this type of terrorist attack is a justification for reversing the withdrawal.
Trump is withdrawing the troops because the mission of crushing ISIS’ dream of a caliphate is complete. They had been expanding their territory at an alarming rate under Obama; killing, raping and enslaving countless people and seizing oil fields and other riches that could be used to fund weapons purchases and more jihad and recruitment. The fact that they are once again reduced to launching lone suicide attacks on innocent people in restaurants isn’t a signal that they’re a rising danger so much as they have been reduced back to the level of the cowardly, shadowy terrorist losers they started out as.
If that’s their status, then it’s not an argument for keeping a large military force in Syria. Troops were needed to force them off their seized territory. They obviously no longer have a state to bomb them off of. Fighting these types of terrorist sneak attacks is the work of intelligence agencies, not soldiers, who would just provide a target for such attacks, as happened Wednesday.
Ironically, a good example of that came on the very same day, when the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force announced the arrest of 21-year-old Hasher Jallal Taheb of Cumming, Georgia. He allegedly planned to attack the White House, Statue of Liberty and other targets as part of his jihad, then to flee to ISIS territory. He was reportedly arrested while trying to trade his vehicle for explosives.
But the FBI said there was no danger: he had been under control since the beginning. They got a tip from a resident that he’d been radicalized, and a person he was dealing with was an FBI informant. This is how you prevent lone wolf radical attacks and discourage others from trying them.
So to sum up: I’m still highly skeptical of withdrawing troops from Syria. But it’s because of what might happen on a larger scale involving state actors who also have troops. We shouldn’t let the potential for suicide attacks by one crazed jihadist determine where we place troops because we don’t have enough troops to station them anywhere and everywhere in the world.
AOC: Primary Democrats
By Mike Huckabee
This is why Rep. Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez is calling on fringe-left radicals to launch primary challenges on Democratic incumbents: there are still a few left in office who have some common sense. One of them is the new chair of the House Homeland Security Committee which oversees ICE. He made it clear that as long as he’s running it, no bills to abolish ICE will be brought to a vote. That will save the Senate the trouble of having to kill them.
Time for SCOTUS to face facts
By Mike Huckabee
I’m not sure why so many liberals are hysterical over the idea of a conservative Supreme Court, since they seem to think that only SCOTUS rulings that are in their favor need to be obeyed.
I told you last week about the Colorado Christian cake designer who won his Supreme Court case, yet is back in court again because he’s still being targeted by the state for refusing to violate his religious beliefs. And here’s another case of déjà vu all over again: one of the most ignominious examples of government bullying during the Obama years is back, with Northern California-based, Obama-appointed Judge Haywood Gilliam once again ordering the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns, to pay for employees’ birth control, including drugs and devices that induce abortions.
A second lawsuit, involving Pennsylvania, hasn’t been ruled on yet. At least the judge in that case asked the plaintiff why it was wrong for Trump to issue a rule exempting the nuns, but it wasn’t wrong for Obama to issue the rules in the first place. She didn’t get a coherent answer, probably because they couldn’t say, “Because we refuse to recognize the results of the 2016 election!”
You might be thinking, “Wait, didn’t the Supreme Court toss out this abomination already?” Yes, in 2016. It was one of the issues that led Christian voters to support Donald Trump, who issued new regulations exempting non-church religious organizations from the Obamacare mandate to provide birth control and abortifacient drugs under their insurance plans. But pro-abortion Attorneys General in California and Pennsylvania went back to court to try to block those regulations. This Obama judge sided with California, in a ruling that would apply to 13 states and DC, despite the SCOTUS already ruling in the nuns’ favor on the issue (note to Chief Justice Roberts: this is what people are talking about when they complain about activist Obama judges.)
The plaintiffs claim that not forcing nuns to pay for abortions and birth control is depriving women of “health care,” even though such drugs are readily available elsewhere and can be paid for through other channels without having to force devoutly religious nuns to fund what they (and anyone with a brain and conscience) consider to be the murder of pre-born children.
Of course, America’s self-appointed conscience, Planned Parenthood, gleefully celebrated the ruling forcing nuns to pay for abortions. But I have a hard time imagining most Americans like this ruling, or the way in which liberal states are perverting the legal system by getting activist judges to find technicalities through which they continue to defy the will of the people, the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s prior rulings.
If you don’t think this is a deliberate targeting of religious Americans for their beliefs, note at the link that the Obama Administration “carved out exemptions for huge corporations like ExxonMobil and PepsiCo but not for religious individuals,” and the blue states’ lawsuit doesn’t challenge the exemption for the corporations, only for religious employers like the nuns.
Attorney Mark Rienzi of the Becket Foundation, which is representing the Little Sisters, said that sadly, these pro-abortion Attorneys General “think ?attacking?nuns is a way to score?political points.?These men?may think their campaign?donors want them?to sue nuns, but our guess is most taxpayers disagree. No one needs nuns in order to get contraceptives, and no one needs these guys reigniting the last administration’s?divisive and unnecessary?culture war.”
It’s time for the Supreme Court to face the fact that their previous “living Constitution” rulings that pulled new “rights” out of thin air created dangerous conflicts with First Amendment rights, with leftist activists exploiting the confusion to attack Americans of faith. The SCOTUS needs to stop issuing these timid technical rulings that apply only to one narrow area and make it clear that First Amendment rights such as free speech and religious freedom reign supreme. If that doesn’t work, then maybe they could use their gavels to pound the idea into the heads of lower court liberal judges who refuse to take “no” for an answer, even when it’s handed down to them from the Supreme Court.
Evening Edition - January 16
By Mike Huckabee
A wrap-up of all the news you might have missed yesterday!
Daily Verse (KJV)
"Commit thy works unto the Lord,
and thy thoughts shall be established."
– Proverbs 16:3
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.