There’s been so much news the past week that it's almost overwhelming, but I can’t let the passing of country star Mickey Gilley go unmentioned. Gilley died last weekend in Pasadena, Texas, at 86 of undisclosed causes.

Gilley was best known for his ‘80s hits that were associated with the “Urban Cowboy” craze kicked off by the John Travolta movie (the country flipside of the disco boom Travolta sparked with “Saturday Night Fever.”) Gilley not enjoyed huge chart success with such pop-country hits as “Stand By Me” and “Don’t the Girls All Get Prettier at Closing Time,” he also became famous for his Gilley’s club, the “world’s biggest honky-tonk,” with its mechanical bull, as seen in the film. Even after the hits dried up, his name was still associated with the Mickey Gilley Golf Classic and live venues. He had a theater in Branson, and there was a Gilley’s to the west of us in Fort Worth (now Billy Bob’s Texas) and still a Gilley’s to the east in Dallas (not his, but named after him.)

Those who know only his '80s “Urban Cowboy” years might be surprised to learn that he’d been plugging away for quite a while before that. His first record, “Ooh We Baby,” came in 1957 (the label was "Minor Records"); his first charted song was “Is It Wrong” in 1960 (the uncredited bass player was Kenny Rogers); and his first album was "Lonely Wine" in 1964. He overcame a number of setbacks, including two fires that destroyed his venues and an accident that paralyzed him for three months and ended his ability to play piano. But he kept performing as a singer and storyteller.

Mickey Gilley was a member of a famous trio of singer/pianist cousins from Ferriday, Louisiana, that included “The Killer” Jerry Lee Lewis in the rock field, and Jimmy Swaggart in the gospel arena. Both cousins are still alive (yes, even Jerry Lee.)

A few years ago, Mickey Gilley visited the “Huckabee” show along with fellow “Urban Cowboy” star Johnny Lee (“Looking for Love in All The Wrong Places.”) You can relive that moment here.

Rest in peace, Mickey.

* * *

Just a quick note on this year’s inductees into the “Rock and Roll” Hall of Fame. In the performer category, they are Pat Benetar and Neil Geraldo, Eurythmics (both deserved), Duran Duran (not my choice, but okay), Carly Simon, Lionel Richie (wait, wasn’t this supposed to be rock?), Dolly Parton (who unsuccessfully asked that her name be removed because she’s never even made a rock record) and Eminem (okay, this is definitely no longer a rock music Hall of Fame. Some of us would argue that that’s not even music.)

The Hall’s CEO defended Eminem’s induction by claiming he “emits the same feeling” as heavy metal does. If that means he induces headaches, I’ll grant that, but it’s not rock. Actual metal pioneers Judas Priest finally got a “Musical Excellence Award,” but weren’t inducted as performers.

As has become a yearly tradition, here’s my very incomplete list of artists who have NOT been inducted into the alleged “Rock and Roll” Hall of Fame so they can make room for people like Eminem, Jay-Z, Dolly Parton, etc.:

Jethro Tull; The Monkees; Mott the Hoople; The Jam; Ted Nugent; Dick Dale; Herman’s Hermits; Blue Oyster Cult; The Guess Who; King Crimson; Thin Lizzy; Robin Trower; Emerson Lake & Palmer; Iron Maiden; Devo; Paul Revere and the Raiders; Styx; Tommy James and the Shondells; Boston; Steppenwolf; America; The Grass Roots; Jan and Dean; Motorhead; Neil Sedaka; Badfinger; the MC5; The New York Dolls; Grand Funk Railroad; Slade; Joe Walsh; Three Dog Night; Warren Zevon; Link Wray; Meat Loaf; Vanilla Fudge; Blood, Sweat and Tears; Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers; J. Geils Band; Bad Company; neither Johnny nor Edgar Winter; Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels; Peter Frampton, Johnny Burnette; Ten Years After; Johnny Rivers; The B-52s and many more.

Watch outgoing White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki not only NOT condemn the protests outside SCOTUS Justices homes but state that they’ve been “peaceful to date, and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes. And that’s the President’s position.”

So the President’s position is that he encourages threatening mobs to continue to violate both state and federal law (such protests outside judge’s private homes can result in a year in prison on the federal level alone)?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also encouraged the protesters to march and show their “righteous anger.”

The Dems don’t seem to realize that when you build a Frankenstein’s monster and rile it up, you can’t control it, and it will eventually turn on you. In this case, it’s already happening. Rabid (and I suspect that may be literally true) pro-abortion protesters are now targeting Nancy Pelosi’s house in San Francisco. They accuse her and other Democrats of being “complicit” in the overturning of Roe v. Wade by not passing a national pro-abortion law when they had a supermajority in the Senate.

If you think I’m being partisan or hyperbolic when I say these people are so radical they’re unhinged, then click on that link and read the evidence in their own words. This is not the old “safe, legal and rare” pro-abortion crowd. These are nutjobs who revel in the grisly act of abortion. They scorn the very idea of saying you want abortions to be rare. Sample protester quote:

"Hillary Clinton, who started the whole thing like abortion should be legal, but rare, as if abortion is a tragedy. We are here to say abortion is a basic right, a basic human right, and without this right, women are basically enslaved.” She said they want "abortion on demand and without apology… legal and accessible, not rare.” She called overturning Roe a "blatant war on women, and other trans-uterus-bearing individuals." (Trans-lation: “women.”)

These sick, ranting lunatics are now outside Nancy Pelosi’s house with bullhorns. The only upside is that as we’ve learned from experience, Democrats only find angry, violent mobs politically useful until they turn and start targeting Democrats. That’s when law and order tends to make a swift comeback.

Last night, Tucker Carlson put together a long, looooong list of people and things that incoming White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has publicly declared to be racist. A small sampling:

Fox News is racist (partly because they called COVID 19 the Wuhan virus, just like CNN and MSNBC used to when they were telling the truth about it); voter ID laws (supported by 69% of black voters and 75% of Hispanic voters) are racist; Brexit (the movement among Britons to leave the European Union) is racist; Republicans who criticized white Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam for being photographed in a KKK outfit are racist for some reason; and most surprising to me, as Tucker put it, “Mike Huckabee. He seems nice…but he’s RAAACIST!!”

This sort of kneejerk accusation of racism appears to be a habit with Ms. Jean-Pierre (she also seems to be, by the Democrats’ own definition, a conspiracy theorist, disinformation peddler and insurrectionist.)

Just as our new Disinformation Czarina likes to sing the score from “Mary Poppins,” I can imagine her warbling the “Avenue Q” ditty, “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.” Only in this White House, it wouldn’t be a solo number, it would be a chorus.

Still, I never imagined when I was a young pastor risking a job I desperately needed by telling my church’s biggest donors that they could find another church if they didn’t like me welcoming black people to our congregation that one day, the official spokesperson for the White House would declare me to be a racist. Believe me, after decades of preaching that racism is a deplorable sin against God, in whose image we are all made, it was as big a shock to me as it was to you to discover what a big racist I am.

But then, you have to understand that, like people who refer to every political opponent as a Nazi or “literally Hitler,” the left has shamefully devalued the word “racist” by applying it to everyone they disagree with. This practice is disgusting because there are some words that should retain their powerful, odious meanings and be used only when truly justified. For instance, I don’t go around calling everyone on the left a “communist,” even though the term fits some of them so well that they proudly adopt it themselves.

Sadly, in political circles, toxic words like “racist” (and the rest of the Modern Dem Quartet: “sexist,” “homophobe” and “transphobe”) have become empty syllables to be thrown like custard pies at anyone you want to humiliate in public. I suppose I should consider it a weird kind of reverse honor, like this Administration’s version of a Presidential medal. It means I’m making arguments that they consider to be a threat to their power, but they have no rational or evidence-based response, so they try to hang the “Racist” medal around my neck to prevent people from listening.

No, thanks. I revile the word and reject the allegation, but I do appreciate your acknowledgement of my effectiveness.

In our May 9 report on the judge’s latest rulings in the Michael Sussmann trial, we mentioned the following:

“On the downside, this judge doesn’t want to bring in evidence of the ‘joint venture’ among Sussmann, Joffe and the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with the Alfa Bank story, because Sussmann hasn’t been charged with conspiracy. The judge said he doesn’t want to ‘confuse the jury’ and ‘distract from the issues at hand.’”

At the time, we didn’t buy his excuse—I mean, reason. And sure enough, it’s this ruling that has Margot Cleveland concerned about how politics might be playing a part with this judge, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. This judge, she said, “let politics trump the law.” Though she finds his “baseline” to be apolitical, mostly even-handed, sometimes he veers from that. We, too, notice that this happens when the facts at issue tend to get too ‘warm’ –- that is, too close to Hillary and her campaign.

Durham had argued that various emails, even if they were hearsay, were still admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. But to rule in Durham’s favor, the judge would essentially be acknowledging that Hillary For America was a co-conspirator.

As Cleveland explains this, a “conspiracy” isn’t necessarily criminal, and that this is why Durham is giving it the more benign term “joint venture. But to make an exception to the hearsay rule, the judge would have to find that “a preponderance of the evidence” supported a conspiracy or joint venture.

Judge Cooper balked at this. He said that for a variety of reasons, his court was exercising “its discretion not to engage of the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it.”

Cleveland explains why, given the witnesses from Georgia Tech who are slated to testify at the trial, there would be no need for an “extensive evidentiary analysis.” Durham’s office had even suggested in their brief that the judge could “preliminarily admit hearsay statements of co-conspirators, subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.” In other words, just wait and issue the ruling during the trial. She thinks the evidence of the joint venture is overwhelming, “easily satisfying the preponderance of evidence test.

She says Judge Cooper’s unwillingness to do this suggests politics at work. He’s not touching the issue of whether the Clinton campaign had conspired to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax. He’s even questioning the whole “joint venture” theory, saying the “contours” of it and its participants are “not entirely obvious.” Cleveland senses that this case “is political to its core,” just like the entire Russia Hoax.

I forgot my magic mind-reading cap today, but it sure looks as though this judge is protecting the Democrats, and, specifically, Hillary Clinton, the queen mother of scandal.

The Washington Times got the same impression.

A while back, we reported on the stunning conflicts of interest this judge has, including the fact that his wife, Amy Jeffress, has represented one of the people most closely involved with the Russia Hoax, Lisa Page. We thought then, how does this judge get this case? How can this judge NOT be political?