Happy New Year

January 1, 2021

Happy New Year! Yes, 2021 is FINALLY here, and let’s all hope and pray that it’s better than 2020 (although things aren’t looking up so far.) I hope you had a safe and fun New Year’s Eve, in whatever way you were able to celebrate.

2020 was a very difficult year for many of us, made all the worse in some states by politicians who specifically targeted places of worship for shutdowns. This despite the fact that studies showed regular churchgoers were the only group whose mental health improved over the span of the pandemic. It shows once again the importance of spiritual support, community and fellowship in surviving hard times.

Too many political leaders forgot this in 2020, and concentrated on meeting physical needs while isolating people and ignoring their spiritual and emotional needs, even waging war on those who tried to meet them. We weren't allowed to visit sick or elderly family members, and when we lost them, as too many of us did, were barred from holding funeral services to comfort the bereaved.

As we enter a new year with hope that the irrational disregard or even hostility to our spiritual needs will soon be behind us, I’d like to share this excerpt on that subject from my book, “Rare, Medium or Done Well: Make the Most of your Life.” It seems even more timely now than it did when I wrote it. And let's all pray that 2021 will be the start of our "happily ever after..." era.

When I was growing up, my bedtime ritual always included a fairy tale that started with “Once upon a time...” and ended with the comforting words we all remember: “And they lived happily ever after.” As a child of the optimistic 1950s, I dreamed that life might be like that: whatever obstacles, dangers or perils might come my way, in the end, I would live happily ever after.

There were certainly plenty of struggles along the way, but I have to say that things did eventually work out even more happily than I could have imagined, from a career that I love to a wonderful family, including the world’s greatest grandkids. But sadly, for many people, “living happily ever after” does seem like an unobtainable fairy tale. Why is that happy ending seemingly out of reach for so many people?

Of course, there are always factors beyond our control, like health problems and accidents. None of us can ever know if our birthday or Christmas celebration was the last we’ll ever enjoy. We have no way of knowing when it will all end, only that someday, it will (that’s why it’s said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes.)

Well, I can’t help you with your taxes, but I do have a bit of advice that I think will make death less frightening and greatly increase your chances of living “happily ever after.”

For decades, our nation has been focused on personal pleasure. The message drummed into everyone by pop culture is “If it feels good, do it.” It’s fostered a culture of self-centeredness that led to Baby Boomers being nicknamed “The Me Generation.” Today’s young people have been dubbed “iGen” because many are so fixated on self and selfies that even their gadgets’ names all start with “I.” Advertising bombards us with the message that life is all about me and all about now. Such messages of immediate self-gratification may sell products and services, but they cause us to sell our souls if we follow this philosophy to its logical conclusion.

At some point in life, we all experience events that shake up our routine, much like the agitator in a washing machine shakes loose the grime in our clothes. We may not want or enjoy such experiences, but they’re necessary to force us to focus on the frailty of life and the certainty of death. They also force us to begin asking what really matters and why.

If we react to setbacks based solely on what feels good right now, we greatly lower our chances of enjoying a happy future. But if we believe there is even a remote possibility that our actions have lasting implications beyond the immediate, both within and beyond our lifetimes, it should cause us to think differently, live differently, and leave a different kind of legacy.

Without apology, I believe that the spiritual side of our lives really does matter. To believe otherwise is to define humans as little more than animated protoplasm, going through the motions of life for no particular purpose. I prefer to believe there’s more to us than flesh and blood. If we possess a soul capable of living beyond our lifetimes, then the seeds we plant in this life will yield fruit forever. If you believe those things, the ultimate becomes more important than the immediate.

When we decide to live beyond our lifetimes, our responsibilities to the next generation will outweigh our roles in our current jobs. More important than the money we’re paid for our work is what we will become as a result of our work. Our character will become more important than the careers we follow.

For all of us, life began “once upon a time.” Unlike the fairy tales, however, it’s up to us to make the choices that determine whether the last line of our life stories will read, “And they lived happily ever after.”



UPDATE --- Hearing Monday on obtaining ballot access

By Mike Huckabee

Maybe we can finally get some answers, but the “powers that be” sure believe in cutting it close. The petition to have some of the Fulton County ballots examined will be heard by the Superior Court of that county, but the hearing is set for Monday, January 4. Note that this is just a hearing, not a decision on whether or not that will happen.

Note: We’re talking about Monday, January 4.

Georgia’s U.S. Senate run-off elections are on Tuesday, January 5.

The certification of the vote for U.S. President in the federal legislature takes place on Wednesday, January 6.

As reported, Jovan Pulitzer, the inventor of electronic bar code scanner technology, says he needs just two hours with the ballots from different areas to determine what was or was not done to accomplish election fraud. We share his frustration about officials playing “hide-and-seek” with the ballots –- and can’t help wondering why they would do that if they weren’t worried about what might be discovered.

It still seems possible that he could do this prior to the certification on the 6th. I can imagine a scene right out of a movie in which Pulitzer, Jimmy Stewart-style, bursts into the House chamber during the certification vote, sweating and with his tie undone, with carts full of ballots, yelling, “I’ve got it! I’ve got it! I can show you exactly how they did it!”

But if that happened, would the media even cover it?


GA senate subcommittee hears STUNNING ballot testimony

(This article originally posted to yesterday.)

By Mike Huckabee

A hearing of the Georgia State Senate Subcommittee on Election Fraud was going on Wednesday --- anybody see the wall-to-wall mainstream media coverage of it?

I know, I know, very funny. But news is slowly emerging about something quite dramatic and fascinating and totally new that happened during this hearing. And we’re not talking about some crazy conspiracy theory about Chinese robot astronauts hacking Dominion voting machines from space.

But there was sworn expert testimony to the effect that they COULD be hacked, not (necessarily) by Chinese robot astronauts from space, but certainly by someone who knew how and wanted to change the vote.

This wasn’t just any expert, either. You know those scanners you see at the grocery store when you check out, at the airport when you print a boarding pass, and just about every other place where you purchase something, show proof of purchase, or have to verify information? This is the man who invented and patented the technology for that. His name is Jovan Hutton Pulitzer.

As reported by Victoria Taft at PJ MEDIA, Pulitzer claimed that to the extent Georgia had election issues, these could be resolved simply by looking at the paper ballots. Then he went further, claiming he could prove the system was susceptible to manipulation via WiFi because his team had already broken in that way and were in the system right then, as he spoke.

A link to Pulitzer’s testimony is included within the story. Pulitzer issued a challenge to the subcommittee: SHOW HIM THE BALLOTS, give him two hours, and he’d be able to tell them if there was election fraud in Fulton County, Georgia.

He said it’s not the code in the machines that is at issue, but the ballots themselves --- something about the ballots that causes them to be read by the machine in a certain way, either as an error or not. In his hour-long presentation, he discussed something he had already found: differences in the type of paper used in two different areas of Fulton County, one heavily Republican, the other heavily Democrat. He could clearly tell the difference.

In addition, there was a bar code on ballots from the Republican area that was not on ballots from the Democrat location, he said. And the alignment cues on the Republican ballots were not correctly aligned, while the Democrat ones were. Those cues are what enable the scanner to read the ballots.

"What I care about is the physical artifact,” he testified, meaning just the ballot. “That physical artifact has material differences from district to district that should not be there. Why are they there?"

He said he and his team can tell immediately if a ballot is real or was made in a copier, whether a person or a machine marked the choices, and whether or not it actually went through the mail. Also, the ballots are numbered, so they can check to see if numbers recurred, to see if a number was run again and again and again as has been claimed in sworn testimony. He can tell where the paper came from, he said, and where the ink came from.

"I’ve spent the last 24 years studying the way paper and machines and internet react. I’ve spent the last six years studying the paper reading details at the nano level. I can tell you what paper came from China. I can tell you if the person who handled it was a smoker. All of it is detectable with the physical ballot.”

Recall the sworn eyewitness testimony of numerous election workers at counting locations who said some of the mail-in ballots were on different paper, looked like copies, hadn't been folded, etc.

And oh-by-the-way, even though Pulitzer said the secret was in the ballots, he also claimed his team had indeed penetrated the voting system with WiFi. He told the subcommittee that when officials assured him the system couldn’t give and receive signals, that was not true. Watch him drop the bomb here.

Pulitzer said, “I’m the guy who told the world that that little bar code can talk to the internet...This is as simple as scanning a loaf of bread at a grocery store. That’s your vote. You’re handing it to the checker or scanning it yourself --- that’s basically the polling machine.”

He continued: “What’s sad about this is we’re not even performing at standards expected at grocery stores...If you complained, [the store] would have to audit and make it right. But we don’t do this in elections? They’re playing hide and seek with the ballots? Why?”

Rudy Giuliani gave some compelling testimony of his own. Here's the video, for when you have time.

After the hearing, the subcommittee did say that they would make “some of” the ballots available for examination. For crying out loud, give the man all the ballots he wants, give his team two hours --- heck, give him three hours --- and let’s see once and for all if anything untoward was done with this vote. Let's put this thing to rest if we can, one way or the other, and if fraud really did change the outcome, we are going to have to look that in the face. There will have to be a legal remedy and we all know what that is. I'm sorry the country has to be put through this, but there is no way around it.

I have to wonder if the lieutenant governor of Georgia, Republican Geoff Duncan, knew anything at all about Pulitzer's testimony when he went on Sandra Smith’s FOX NEWS show Wednesday and said those who question the election results are participating in a “misinformation” campaign.

He accused some Republicans of “trying to figure out ways to flip the election with misinformation” and said that’s “not American.” He's concerned that talking about misinformation was hurting them for their January 5 election –- that it interferes with their “winning attitude.” I’m not quite sure I follow his reasoning. Asking questions and determining the answers to the most important issue before our nation right now is not dealing in “misinformation.” It’s something that has to happen, or upwards of 70 million voters will never trust an election again. Most especially this one in Georgia.

Veto News

December 30, 2020

Monday, the House voted to override President Trump’s veto of the $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act, and the Senate is expected to vote on that today. But for once, House Democrats supported a Trump proposal, voting with 44 Republicans to increase the coronavirus support payment for Americans from $600 to $2000.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is threatening to stall the veto vote in the Senate unless Republicans back the hike in relief payments.

But it’s unclear if that will be necessary, since Sen. Marco Rubio has already announced that he’ll back the relief increase. He agrees with concerns about how to pay for it, but thinks it’s urgent to get money now to people who’ve been harmed by the endless lockdowns and find cuts later. Since that never happens, I'll suggest that they start with that massive spending bill that they just passed that includes such money-burning nonsense as $10 million for “gender studies programs” in Pakistan.

Rubio also plans to propose a separate bill to take away the Section 230 lawsuit protection from Big Tech social media companies that edit and censor users’ political statements rather than acting as neutral platforms, which the law requires them to do to qualify for protection. The lack of such a measure was one of the chief reasons why Trump vetoed the bill.

Does anyone else wonder when we got to the point that it now requires passing new laws to force people to obey laws that already exist?

Remember that infamous 1999 Newsweek cover: “We Are All Socialists Now”? I thought at the time, “It’s nice that the staff of Newsweek finally admitted it.” But it turned out they meant all Americans were socialists. That’s the kind of buggy idea you can get when you spend all your time in an office full of fellow leftists in New York City and would rather cross the Atlantic in a rowboat than cross the Hudson River and visit the rest of America.

Well, nearly two decades later, socialism is once again on the march, pushed by a lot of naïve young people who have been misled by their professors and self-proclaimed “socialist” media stars in $20,000 designer outfits, and who have no idea what socialism really is or the inevitable dire consequences of it (FYI: no, having a fire department isn’t “socialism.”) But is the idea of a socialist America really booming in popularity, or is it, like so many things these days, just a fantasy narrative based on the wishful thinking of a leftist mass media?

Well, now we know, because someone finally asked Americans what they think of all this new socialism talk. Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute surveyed Americans and found that socialism is even less popular than (brace yourself) Congress!

When asked whether they prefer a free market economic system or socialism, Americans chose free markets over socialism by 75%-11% (Congress’ Gallup Poll approval rating is 15%, suggesting a perfect Congressional motto: “We may be awful, but we’re slightly more popular than socialism!”)

As for the media’s beloved celebrity face of chic, fashion magazine socialism, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 58% of Americans view her unfavorably. Only 18% view her “very favorably” and 19% “somewhat favorably.”

The same poll found that only 51% of Americans view Joe Biden favorably, so if he becomes President and starts trying to force a lot of far-left judges, legislation and executive orders onto an unwilling people, the Democrats will have their own “resistance” to deal with, and it will come from about three-quarters of the population.

Georgia Senate update

December 30, 2020

John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, the two Democrats running for Senate in Georgia on a platform of giving full control of the federal government to the Democrats, have issued a dire warning to donors that they’re running out of money.

I could list approximately 27 trillion reasons why you should not elect either of them and put the Democrats in charge of running America unchecked, but this story alone should be enough to tell Georgia voters not to vote for them.

This race has attracted a tsunami of money from outside the state, with everyone from Hollywood celebrities to Silicon Valley limousine leftists trying to buy Georgia’s Senate seats. Each candidate has raked in over $100 million. Yet in less than two months, together they’ve both blown through $200 million just trying to win Senate seats in one state. Do you really want to put them, and all the people in Washington like them, in charge of federal spending and your tax rate?