WATCH: If Every American Saw This 3 Minute Video, Hillary Clinton Wouldn’t Stand A Chance

National Review just released a video compiling in less than three minutes some of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not a trustworthy choice for the highest office in the land.

The video, which is entitled Who is Hillary Clinton?, opens with various high profile Democrats offering their reasons why Clinton is the best choice. She is the “most qualified,” they all appear to mimic.

“And by the way, thoroughly vetted,” one notes.

The video then delves into several recent revelations (covered by National Review), including:

1) Her use of a personal email server while secretary of state

2) Her wiping that server clean of all those emails, while purporting to turn over hard copies of all the work-related emails to the State Department (which is required by the Public Records Act)

3) The conflicts of interests in play as she served as secretary of state–her husband earned millions of dollars in speaking fees, and the Clinton Foundation took in tens of millions in foreign donations (the most egregious example perhaps being the Uranium One deal with Russia).

4) Her failure to turn over all work-related emails to the State Department, as previously claimed

5) The revelation in some of those emails that Sidney Blumenthal provided solicited, not unsolicited, counsel to Clinton on Libya and other matters, contrary to what she previously claimed. All this occurred while Blumenthal was employed at the Clinton Foundation and had personal business interests in Libya.

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee asks one important, overarching question concerning her effectiveness as secretary of state (while all the above was going on): “Name one country on this planet, which we have a better relationship than we have in January, 2009?”

As reported by Western Journalism, former President Jimmy Carter asked the same question last week.

A clip of Clinton’s own campaign video brings NRO’s to a close. “Let the conversation begin, I think it’s going to be very interesting,” the candidate says.

h/t: The Right Scoop

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Gov. Huckabee Just Released This BOLD Plan To Defend Religious Liberty In The U.S.

Presidential candidate Mike Huckebee released a plan to defend religious liberty in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling last week legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

The former Arkansas governor said: “The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.”

With this in mind, Huckabee’s offered his three point plan for executive action if he is elected president:

Religious liberty executive orders: Sign executive orders in support of traditional marriage that protect businesses, churches, non-profits, schools and universities, hospitals, and other organizations from discrimination, intimidation, or civil or criminal penalties for exercising their religious beliefs.

Prosecute hate crimes against people of faith: Direct the Attorney General to protect religious liberty and aggressively prosecute any violations of First Amendment rights of individuals, businesses, religious organizations, institutions and civil servants, including those who believe in traditional marriage. The Justice Department will protect and defend the rights of American citizens to follow their religious convictions without discrimination and prosecute attacks on people of faith and their religious liberty as hate crimes.

Defend people of faith in our military: Direct the Secretary of Defense to support military chaplains to exercise their faith and not force them to participate in ceremonies they find objectionable on religious grounds. People of faith will not be punished for serving their country and sacrificing to keep us free.

Huckabee kicked off his “Religious Liberty Town Hall Tour” on Tuesday in Iowa going through July 2.

As reported by Western Journalism, the Supreme Court’s decision creating the right for same-sex couples to marry will likely have broad religious liberty implications on individuals, businesses, and non-profits if action is not taken at the federal and state levels.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion in the case, recognized this fact, but offered this reassurance: “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

Dissenting justices did not share Kennedy’s optimistic appraisal and found alarm in his word choice. Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the majority appears unmoved by the “inevitability” of religious liberty and this ruling coming into conflict. “It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition.”

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed Justice Thomas’ concern about Kennedy’s limited view of religious liberty. “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Following the majority’s view of religious liberty, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs [about marriage] will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, introduced legislation earlier this month to address the problem at the federal level. The First Amendment Defense Act “would prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.” The bill already has 18 co-sponsors in the Senate and 47 co-sponsors in the House.

As reported by Western Journalism, Gov. Bobby Jindal issued an executive order last month directing all state agencies in Louisiana not to deny anyone licenses or other state benefits based on his or her “religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Huckabee Says He Will Do This Epic Thing As President Since Obama Lit Up White House With Rainbow Lights

In a recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee reacted to the prevailing news story of recent days. He criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage on a federal level, going on to cite Barack Obama’s reaction as especially inappropriate.

“We’ve seen something, though, that is, I find, very interesting,” he said. “When the president lit up the White House the other night with rainbow colors, I guess that’s his prerogative. If I become president, I just want to remind people that please don’t complain if I were to put a nativity scene out during Christmas and say it’s my house, I get to do with it as I wish despite what other people around the country may feel about it.”


Huckabee went on to lament the ostensible hypocrisy with which leftists treat the judicial branch. He couched his point in the narrative of a hypothetical scenario.

“We’re also going to say that every unborn person is in fact a person,” he said, “and is absolutely guaranteed due process. And therefore we would strike down the idea of abortion from conception forward. Is the left going to be OK to let the Supreme Court make that decision? Because, based on the response this week, I think they have to say, ‘Yes, that’s fine. When five lawyers on the Supreme Court make that decision, we’re OK with it.’”

Huckabee has spoken out against judicial activism in the past, weighing in last month on the expected Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage.

“When it comes to prayer,” he asserted, “when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created.”

Did Obama act inappropriately by promoting gay marriage with the recent rainbow light show? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Repubs Who Gave Obama What He Wanted Just Got A MAJOR Wake-Up Call From This 2016 Candidate

In a recent interview, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee blasted the renewal of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which enables President Obama to present trade deals for straight up or down votes to Congress — without fear of amendments or filibusters.

“Seventy-four percent of Republicans in America oppose this trade deal,” Huckabee said on Radio Iowa Wednesday after TPA’s passage was assured. “You would think that maybe some of the Republicans would be a little sensitive to the people who sent them there rather than to the donor class and the investor class who are clearly pushing this.”

The former Arkansas governor and one-time Fox News host slammed recent American trade policy, contending it has not benefited Americans. “I think trade is very important. I believe in free trade, it’s just that we haven’t seen much of it,” he said. “What we’ve seen is a very unbalanced trade agreement enacted upon the American worker.”

You want to make sure that the people’s elected representatives have a voice in it. Frankly, I’m sure that there’s a political side of me that says, ‘I’d like to have the authority and you can trust me,’ but there’s not much trust in government right now and I think the more checks and balances that we can have, the better.

After a pivotal vote to end debate on TPA Tuesday, Huckabee let his feelings be known via Twitter:

Do you agree with Mike Huckabee on TPA? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Admin Weighs In On Confederate Flag Controversy, Says It Belongs In One Place

The White House made President Obama’s position clear on the Confederate flag Thursday, causing the media to question Republican presidential hopefuls to make their stance on the flag known.

Until 15 years ago, the stars and bars flew above South Carolina’s capitol dome in Columbia, when lawmakers reached a compromise, as CNN notes:

Back in 2000, civil rights activists successfully lobbied to have a much larger Confederate flag removed from the Capitol dome. But there was a compromise.

The South Carolina Heritage Act decreed that just about all other tributes to Confederate history would be virtually untouchable. The only way to change anything of that nature — including the smaller flag that was erected on the State House lawn — would be to gain the endorsement of two-thirds of lawmakers.

The news outlet also pointed out that even the height of its flagpole is regulated at 30 feet and does not have a pulley system. So unless lawmakers vote to take it down, it can only fly all the way up. The Confederate flag was also never the official flag of the Confederacy.

Discussion of the Confederate flag comes after Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old white man, allegedly shot and killed nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) in Charleston, S.C. He faces nine counts of murder and possibly the death penalty. Roof is said to have racist tendencies.

The Obama administration affirmed its position of the Confederate flag last week. “The president has said before he believes the Confederate flag belongs in a museum, and that is still his position,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters aboard Air Force One Friday, The Hill reported.

Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, echoed Obama’s sentiments. “In Florida we acted, moving the flag from the state grounds to a museum where it belonged. This is obviously a very sensitive time in South Carolina and our prayers are with the families, the AME church community and the entire state. Following a period of mourning there will rightly be a discussion among leaders in the state about how South Carolina should move forward, and I’m confident they will do the right thing,” he said in a statement.

2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney called for the Palmetto State to take down the flag altogether, and Obama responded positively:

Other Republicans wereMike Huckabee asked their thoughts on the Confederate flag.

Over the weekend, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was asked by Chuck Todd on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday his thoughts on the Confederate flag, noting he does not display it anywhere but also that it is “an issue for the people of South Carolina.”

This is [a] state in that largely white people elected a female governor of Indian descent, and the first ever African-American United States senator from the south. They have more diversity in the people that they have elected to statewide office than New York, Connecticut or Massachusetts. There’s 4.8 million people in South Carolina. I don’t think you can say that presence of one lunatic racist…is somehow evidence of the people of South Carolina.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also deferred to states rights in an interview on ABC’s This Week: “I would say that these are decisions that should be made by people. I don’t think the federal government or federal candidates should be making decisions on everything, and opining on everything. This is a decision that needs to be made here in South Carolina.”

What do you think about the Confederate flag? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth