By Mike Huckabee
March 24, 2022
|
|
|
|
Good morning! Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff!
Today's newsletter includes:
- Ukraine: President Biden heads to Europe
- Justice Thomas' Health
- AINSWORTH: America's so-called "elites" are the cream that has curdled
- And much more
Sincerely,
Mike Huckabee
1. DAILY BIBLE VERSE
But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
James 1:6
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected].
2. Ukraine: President Biden heads to Europe
Ukraine: President Biden heads to Europe
Here’s today’s link to Fox News’ continually-updated bulletins on the Russian invasion of Ukraine:
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-live-updates-03-24-2022
President Biden is in Europe for meetings with NATO, G7 and EU officials. He’s expected to urge more sanctions on Russia. On Thursday, the White House announced sanctions on 65 Russian banks, business elites and industries that are believed to be supporting Putin’s war, as well as more than 300 members of Russia’s federal assembly and more than 40 Russian defense companies. The White House also said the US will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees.
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy told NATO that Russia is using its full army without restrictions against Ukraine, and he needs “military assistance without restrictions.” He said, "NATO has yet to show what the Alliance can do to save people…To show that this is truly the most powerful defense association in the world. And the world is waiting. And Ukraine is very much waiting, for real action.”
New York Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres called on the FBI to investigate the Russian Diplomatic Compound in New York City, which has long been described as a hub of Russian espionage in the US. I'd suggest fumigating the UN, too.
Those wondering how the outmatched and outgunned Ukrainians are managing to hold off the Russian army while inflicting so much damage will be interested in this story about how they received training for just such an emergency from US Army Special Forces, aka the Green Berets.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-armys-green-berets-have-lasting-impact-on-fight-in-ukraine
While Putin may dream of recreating the old Soviet Union, in one sense, he already has: thanks to the sanctions he’s brought on, Russians are once again standing in long lines to get basic necessities. They say it’s like the USSR came back overnight.
And this could turn the Western media against Zelenskyy: Men who identify as women are being turned back at the border when they attempt to flee Ukraine and told they’re men so they are required to stay and fight.
This presents another logical conundrum for leftists: They think it’s transphobic for Ukraine to draft men who identify as women because they're really women and shouldn't be forced to fight. But they also think it’s sexist for the US not to draft women who were actually born female. Which is it?
3. Justice Thomas’ Health
When it was announced Friday that Justice Clarence Thomas had been hospitalized with a non-COVID infection, the seriousness of it was downplayed. It was said that he was already recovering and expected to be released Monday or Tuesday. But this week, he missed three days of oral arguments, and the SCOTUS refused to say Wednesday whether he remains hospitalized.
This is giving rise to ghoulish glee on the left and panic on the right about Justice Thomas’ health. I prefer to be optimistic and assume that he’s just following doctors’ advice and deserves some privacy while he recuperates fully. But it wouldn’t hurt to say a prayer for his complete recovery, just to be on the safe side.
4. AINSWORTH: America's so-called "elites" are the cream that has curdled
Yesterday, we received a comment on our Substack edition by reader Marcia D:
Wondering …… why do we continue to call our “leaders and their minions” ELITE? They aren’t! You are so wonderful with words, how about coming up with something that describes our Hollywood snobs etc better. LOVE your newsletter.
Dear Marcia:
Thanks for writing and for your kind appreciation. When we use...that word...it’s almost always meant ironically, so from now on, whenever appropriate, we’ll try to use quotation marks to make that clear. I decided to look at the various dictionary definitions of the word to see how they might apply to our political and societal “elite.” Here are a few…
Oxford Dictionaries has two definitions of the word as a noun. Since the second one relates to the “elite” 12-point typeface, we’ll toss that and focus on the first one: “a select group that is superior in ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.” This definition might apply if we were talking about, say, an “elite” fighting force, but it definitely does not apply when we talk about our political and cultural leaders, as (ironically) they have aptly demonstrated. Polls certainly bear that out.
Merriam-Webster shades the meaning of “elite” a little differently, offering several entries:
1) the choice part, or ‘cream,’ as in “the elite of the entertainment world.” No, that doesn’t fit our leaders at all. If they’re a choice, it’s not our choice. If they’re the cream, it has long since curdled.
2) the best of a class, as in “the superachievers who dominate the computer elite.” Sorry, no. If these leaders are the best we’ve got, we need to start thinking outside the box about where our leaders are going to come from. The ones in power now are not superachievers by any stretch of the imagination. I think some of them must realize this. Kamala Harris, for example, surely realizes on some level that she’s in over her head. Maybe that’s why she cackles uncontrollably --- to try to dispel her own panic.
3) the socially superior part of society, as in “how the French-speaking elite was changing.” No, that definition fits only if we look at how these leaders think of THEMSELVES. They are considered socially superior only within their own circle, perhaps in Hollywood or the Upper West Side. If this definition were modified to reflect that, it could work.
4) a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power and influence, as in “members of the ruling elite.” At last, here’s a definition that really does seem to fit, with a few caveats. First, we’ve got to put the word “education” in quotation marks, considering what a so-called Ivy League education means these days. And we’d definitely want to add the word “undue,” as in “undue influence.” Gee, wouldn’t it be nice to undo all that undue influence?
If used as an adjective, M-W’s definition is “superior in quality, rank, skill, etc., as in, “The elite chess players of today...hail from all over the world.” But while, tragically, our leaders do rank higher in power and influence than the rest of us –- that’s what makes them leaders, after all –- they only think they’re superior in terms of quality and skill.
Good lord, the President of the United States, arguably the 'elitest' of the elite, can’t even read a teleprompter, and that's too bad because he can't speak without one. If he were TRYING to destroy the country, I doubt he’d be doing anything differently. On the other hand, if that’s what he actually is trying to do, I take it back: he definitely has some skills. He's been in office little more than one year, and it's hard to watch the news at any given moment without thinking the words "hell in a handbasket."
Our (probable) next Supreme Court justice --- there's hardly anything more 'elite' than that lofty perch --- says she can’t even define what a woman is and doesn’t think her views on that or on CRT would be an issue for her as a justice. The bar has really been lowered.
Moving on, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “elite” this way:
A group or class of persons considered to be superior to others because of their intelligence, social standing or wealth.
Again, our “elite” consider THEMSELVES to be superior in intelligence (some, I would call idiot savants) and, in many cases, social standing. Wealth, however, is a more objective standard that definitely does apply. To illustrate, I’ll use “elite” in a sentence: “Elites such as Mark Zuckerberg use their vast wealth and undue influence to buy elections.”
The Collins English Dictionary defines the noun “elite” like this:
The most powerful, rich, gifted or educated members of a group, community, etc.
Again, the same issues apply. This definition might work if we put “educated” in quotes and also, in quite a few cases, add just one letter to change “gifted” to “grifted.”
The Random House Kemerman Websters College Dictionary has several entries:
1) the choice or best of a group, class or the like. (NOPE.)
2) persons of the wealthiest class. (YES, generally that is true.)
3) a group of persons exercising authority within a larger group. (YES, indeed.)
Check your thesaurus, and you might see many of these synonyms for “elite”:
upper class, upper crust (I"d say it’s true, some of them are looking pretty crusty)
elect, chosen (Not by us, God knows)
cream, pick (Again, this cream is curdled)
intelligentsia (Hold on, ever hear the expression, "educated beyond one's intelligence"?)
beau monde, bon ton, high society, ‘smart set’ (Two words: Hillary’s pantsuits)
aristocracy, gentry, nobility (Two words: John Kerry)
technocrat (Well, we're definitely crawling with those)
selected (Editorial note: remember, they can be un-selected!)
I’m also reminded of the Cole Porter song, “You’re the Top.” You know, “You’re the top...you’re the Colosseum! You’re the top...you’re the Louvre Museum!” Except in the case of our “elite” leaders, I’d sing it this way:
“You’re a flop...you’re a big disaster
You’re a flop...you are not my master
You can censor me and de-monetize my words
But I’ll cause some blowback, I’ll go on Substack, I WILL be heard!
You’re a flop...just an Ivy Leaguer
You’re a flop...and your talent’s meager
As ‘elites’ you stink but you think that you’re tip-top
You are way down on the bottom, you’re a flop!
--- Laura Ainsworth, staff writer
5. Red flags
Despite the assumption that Biden SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson is a shoe-in for Senate confirmation, Jackson’ own statements threw out a couple of red flags noticed by the public. One was her alleged leniency for sex offenders and child porn possessors…
The other occurred when Jackson said something so bizarre that it went viral and sparked widespread debate and mockery. With so many cases sure to come in which “trans” people demand newly-created rights, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked Jackson what should have been an easy question for a first grader: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
Jackson’s response: “No, I can’t…I’m not a biologist.”
I refuse to be disrespectful enough to believe she’s really that ignorant, so I assume that answer means, “I refuse to confirm that I have a grasp of even the most basic realities of life because that will offend powerful Democrat voting blocs that demand we all deny reality."
That P.S. of “I’m not a biologist” came in for particular scrutiny, with one wag replying, “I’m not a veterinarian, but I know what a dog is.”
I could link to a lot of commentary on this, but for the most entertainment with your news, I’ll choose Kurt Schlichter.
https://townhall.com/columnists/larryoconnor/2022/03/23/biologists-determine-biology-so-n2604949
He also makes the salient point that by adding that “biologist” comment, Judge Jackson admitted under oath that the definition of a “woman” is a matter of biology, not attitude. So she should rule on any cases involving trans encroachment on women’s sports accordingly.
And in case you missed it: here’s Texas Sen. John Cornyn forcing Judge Jackson to admit that the right to same-sex marriage that the SCOTUS “found” in the Constitution isn’t actually there.
6. Here we go again
Senate Republicans assuring SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson that she won’t be treated the way the Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh has given liberals in the media an opening to repeat a new fact-free talking point: that Kavanaugh was “credibly accused” of sexual assault. No, he was accused. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, “’Credibly’s’ got nothin’ to do with it.” Here’s a reminder...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/supreme-court-msnbc-abc-kavanaugh-assault
As noted at the link, Senate Republicans only brought up the way Democrats slander Republican nominees with no evidence to make it clear that they don’t do that, the other side does. Ironically, in their reaction to it, the Dems’ media mouthpieces are proving that point for them.
7. Republicans score important court victories
Republicans scored a couple of important court victories this week. The Supreme Court rejected an attempt to replace the Wisconsin legislature’s voting district map with one drawn by the Governor that created an extra 7th majority black district. Defenders claimed this was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
The SCOTUS ruled that this was in error. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that under the Equal Protection Clause, districting maps that sort voters on the basis of race “are by their very nature odious.” Any state that draws districts based on race has to withstand strict scrutiny in proving that there’s a compelling state interest in doing so, and it must be “narrowly tailored” to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
https://utexas.app.box.com/s/7ca2iocqmaz9xk8xlklcwqrvisa842bu
The larger point here is that the Court reaffirmed that states can’t use the Voting Rights Act as a blanket excuse to gerrymander voting districts based solely on race. That can only be done in a very limited way, and they must have a solid reason for why it’s necessary.
The other court win came in Ohio, where federal District Judge Michael Newman ruled in favor of attorneys general from Arizona, Montana and Ohio in a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas.
https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-hands-republican-states-big-win-biden-blocking-dhs-order/
Mayorkas issued a memo to ICE agents, ordering them to prioritize deportations of illegal aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety, or who recently came to the US. As for the rest, he wrote, “In exercising our discretion, we are guided by the fact that the majority of undocumented noncitizens who could be subject to removal have been contributing members of our communities for years…The fact that an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it.”
As you might imagine, federal immigration law doesn’t include an exception for those who’ve managed to dodge deportation long enough (those he euphemically called "removable noncitizens.") The judge quite correctly ruled that Mayorkas was attempting to rewrite the law to make it more to his liking. He cited a quote from a 1952 SCOTUS decision that we should probably embroider onto samplers and send to DC to decorate the entire executive branch:
“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”
That’s a bedrock tenet of the Constitution that the Obama Administration regularly flouted and that Biden has continued. Whenever Obama didn’t like a law Congress had passed, his DOJ would simply refuse to enforce it; and when Congress refused to pass a law he wanted, even one he admitted he had no power to enact, he would go ahead and create it anyway by “executive order.” Too many times, activist liberal judges went along with the insane idea that somehow, Obama had the power to create laws by executive order, but Trump didn’t have the power to rescind those unconstitutional edicts.
Let’s hope that this ruling heralds a trend of judges putting the brakes on Biden’s attempts to continue lawless rule by executive order and ignoring laws that he took an oath to enforce.
8. Project Veritas shows how the Biden “Justice” Department did it
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released documents showing how the Biden “Justice” Department got around a judge that ordered them to respect the group’s First Amendment rights as journalists by obtaining secret electronic surveillance orders that were not disclosed to the court, requiring disclosure of "all content" of communications associated with Project Veritas’ email accounts, including attorney-client communications.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/aclu-doj-project-veritas-ashley-biden-diary
This is on top of the strong-arm raids they conducted against PV, including roughing up O’Keefe in his own home, and seizing computers and other items.
They were allegedly investigating the theft of Presidential daughter Ashley Biden’s diary, which in itself is extremely questionable conduct for an allegedly nonpartisan agency. On top of that, as O’Keefe told me in an interview, Project Veritas didn’t even have the diary. A tipster had given it to them, they couldn’t authenticate it, so they gave it to law enforcement to return to its rightful owner. But these latest documents show that the Project Veritas emails the feds were collecting dated back to January 2020, eight months before they even knew the diary existed.
This whole thing smells of the White House corrupting federal law enforcement to use it as a battering ram against political opponents, including journalists. It carries a strong whiff of bananas, as in “banana republic.” The stench is so bad that even the liberal ACLU spoke out against the targeting of Project Veritas, saying they’re “deeply troubled” by these reports, and that this could have serious consequences for press freedom.
Incidentally, I notice that they couldn’t defend Project Veritas’ basic First Amendment rights without doing a little groveling to their liberal donors by starting out with, "We deplore Project Veritas’ deceptions,” yet not naming any of those alleged “deceptions.” O’Keefe loves to point out that PV is constantly accused of being “deceptive,” but critics don’t explain what’s deceptive about their reporting, and they’re never lost a lawsuit.
But in the spirit of the ACLU, let me also say that I stand strong in defending the First Amendment rights of Project Veritas and all journalists, even the New York Times, in spite of how much I deplore their deceptions.
Related: Our “nonpartisan” FBI backtracks after being outed for celebrating the SCOTUS nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson.
9. Feel-Good Story
We could use a positive, feel-good story right now. So a big salute to second grade teacher Kensey Jones of St. Michael’s Episcopal School in Richmond, Virginia, for coming up with a great creative writing assignment for her class. And congratulations to the kids for doing such a good job of writing essays on behalf of the animals in the local shelter on why they want to and deserve to be adopted. Click the link; I guarantee this will move you and make you smile, and also make you hug your dog.
I Just Wanted to Say
Thank you for reading my newsletter.
For more news, visit my website here.
Permalink: https://www.mikehuckabee.com/2022/3/morning-edition-march-24
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.