Mike Huckabee

Today’s Must-Read article is from the New Neo blog, where the anonymous female blogger (a former Democrat-turned-conservative surrounded by liberals in NYC) examines how liberals have become so blinded by groundless Trump hatred that they can no longer see dangerous realities, such as the rising anti-Semitism in their own party.

In particular, she cites a column in the Jewish magazine Tablet by Bari Weiss, whom you’d think might understand where the real danger is, since she was driven out of the New York Times for daring to express non-leftist groupthink-approved thoughts. She recognizes the dangers of the fascistic, anti-Semitic radical left, and that Biden will allow it to gain more power, but she can’t even bring herself to consider the possibility of doing the only thing to stop it: voting for Trump. She describes him in purple prose as an “obscenity” who has “normalized bigotry and cruelty in ways that have crippled American society.” As the blogger notes, she offers no specifics as to how he’s allegedly done that.

She then quotes Weiss describing the attributes of the classic liberal that she fears are being lost in the Democratic Party: “…the belief that everyone is equal because everyone is created in the image of God. The belief in the sacredness of the individual over the group or the tribe. The belief that the rule of law—and equality under that law—is the foundation of a free society. The belief that due process and the presumption of innocence are good and that mob violence is bad. The belief that pluralism is a source of our strength; that tolerance is a reason for pride; and that liberty of thought, faith, and speech are the bedrocks of democracy…”

As the blogger points out, those things aren’t under assault in the Democratic Party; they’ve been dead there for years. What Weiss is describing is a conservative Trump voter, but her visceral hatred for “Orange Man Bad” has blinded her to seeing it.

It’s well worth reading and sharing the whole piece. But if your Trump-hating relatives refuse to read it, you can get the basic idea across by coming to dinner in one of those T-shirts that has Trump’s picture on it with the caption, “In reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.”

Mike Huckabee

Meet the unbiased moderator of this Thursday’s final Presidential debate.

She’s an NBC reporter with long ties to the Democratic Party, who once asked President Trump if he had ever worked for Russia, who quickly deleted her Twitter tweets after being chosen, and who is known for being caught on camera tipping off Hillary Clinton’s spokeswoman about a question she was going to ask. The New York Post quoted a senior White House official as saying that they consider her an activist, not a reporter, and that the press corps views her the same way they would if Nancy Pelosi or AOC walked into the room.

So, pretty much your stand Presidential Debate Commission choice for moderator. The Wall Street Journal has a good diagnosis of what went wrong with the Commission: like so many things, it started out with good intentions, then became a “creature of Washington’s political class,” and now, it’s hopelessly partisan. Their suggestion:

“This year should be its last as the arbiter of debates. If it won’t go away on its own, the next GOP nominee should refuse to cooperate and negotiate the rules and timing of the debates in 2024 with the Democratic nominee.”

I second that. To let them continue picking the moderators would be like a football team letting all the referees for the big game be chosen from the other team’s cheerleading squad.

Mike Huckabee

There’s a new Project Veritas undercover expose video that really doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know, it just confirms it. In it, a senior manager for Google, Ritesh Lakhkar, says he felt “suffocated” there by the extreme leftist culture, and admits that the search giant exercises God-like, politically partisan control over the information users see. He said if Trump says something you can call misinformation, you delete it; if a Democrat leader does that, you leave it; because “you are just plain and simple trying to play God…You’re like playing selective God.” He says they do the same at Google-owned YouTube.

He admits that if you search for “Donald Trump,” you get all negative stories; and if you search for “Joe Biden,” you get all positive stories, because the results are “skewed by the owners and the drivers of the algorithm.” Those Google workers who create the algorithm are so far-left and anti-Trump that when Trump won in 2016, they were crying in the corridors. HR arranged therapy sessions and they were given time off to deal with their grief. Now, he thinks that if Trump wins again, they’ll riot. He said he’d never seen anything like it: “When I worked for Caterpillar or Corning, politics didn’t really matter. You just do your job and, ‘Let’s make tractors, let’s make glass.’”

See more and the video at the link. As I said, it’s proof of what anyone who spends much time on the Internet looking up news already knows, but it’s good to have plenty of proof when you’re holding Senate hearings and writing new regulations and declaring out of control monopolies to be public utilities.

In the meantime, here are a couple of handy tips for you to get around Google’s extreme bias:

DuckDuckGo.com is an excellent search engine that doesn’t skew results or track your web browsing to invade your privacy like some I could name.

If you must search for a news story on Google, add a trusted sources’ name to your search terms. For instance, type in “Trump income taxes Foxnews.” That way, you’ll see the FoxNews.com write-up of that story. Goodness knows, if you don’t include a conservative source in your search, Google will never show it to you.

Mike Huckabee

There are a lot of misleading ads running right now, but one in particular irks me for the artful way in which it misleads viewers into thinking Republicans want to take away their health care. It’s also a great example of a certain genre of reprehensible campaign ads that try to win votes by frightening the vulnerable through slandering the innocent. So I thought I’d examine it more closely to show you the techniques used so you’ll understand how you’re being played, not only by this ad but by the many, many others that are similarly sneaky.

This TV spot is sponsored by a leftwing PAC called Future Forward USA. To play on the viewers’ emotions, it pairs dramatic music with images of worried-looking Americans of various backgrounds. It starts with a narrator telling us that 133 million Americans have pre-existing medical conditions. That’s likely true, but it doesn’t mention that the vast majority do have coverage for them, such as employer-provided policies, Medicare and Medicaid.

The narrator then says, “This Administration and Senate Republicans want to overturn laws requiring insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions.” That’s only technically true. They want to overturn one specific bad law (the ACA, or “Obamacare”) that increased consumer costs while providing inferior coverage due to its one-size-fits-all government-mandated nature. It’s mostly gone now, but we need to remove the remaining shards so it can be replaced with something better that helps those who really can’t take care of themselves while using market forces to improve quality and lower prices for everyone else.

I’ve been in Republican politics for decades and can honestly say I’ve never met a single fellow Republican who dreams of taking away health care from people with preexisting conditions. We used to say that the parties mostly agreed on what needed to be done, we just differed on how to accomplish it. Now, if you disagree with the liberal approach (a giant government takeover), it means you want people to get sick and die. No.

Incidentally, I also know zero Republicans who want to take away your grandparents’ Medicare or slash their Social Security and make them eat cat food. I’ve been seeing campaign ads that make those claims since I was a small child. I’m now old enough for Medicare myself, yet after all that time, Medicare is still here and Social Security payments have only increased.

Next, the narrator says, “They’re rushing a lifetime appointment through the Supreme Court to change the law through the courts.” Conservatives don’t believe in “changing laws through the courts.” But they do believe it’s the duty of courts to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Even so, Judge Amy Coney Barrett and President Trump both insist that they have not discussed how she would rule on any future case, including Obamacare. And her appointment is not being “rushed.” The timeline is entirely in keeping with historical precedent.

Next, the narrator tells us, “70% of Americans want to keep protections for pre-existing conditions in place.” I’m surprised it’s not 100%. Again, I know of no one who wants to take health care away from sick people or seize Tiny Tim’s crutch and sell it on eBay. The argument is over how to do it effectively, cost-efficiently and constitutionally, in a way that helps those in need without destroying the system for everyone else.

It ends with an entreaty to call the White House and Senate and tell them to “stop playing games with our health care.” Nobody thinks it’s a game (see above.) It’s a serious issue that is being taken seriously by Republicans. Far more seriously, I might add, than Obamacare was when it was rammed through in the middle of the night and Nancy Pelosi told us they had to pass it first to find out what was in it.

It probably won’t surprise you to learn that the PAC that created this ad is supported by deep-pockets leftwing donors, including about $3 million from the leftist dark money group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund and a million dollars from super-rich former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

This ad particularly incensed me because of its subject matter and misleading nature, but it’s hardly unique. Sadly, it’s one of far too many political ads that are based on the old cynic’s definition of advertising: it’s the art of disconnecting people’s brains long enough to sell them something. Or in this case, of poisoning people’s brains long enough to get them to vote a certain way.