Trump Just Received Startlingly Glowing Words From A Unlikely Source

Acknowledging the two do not always agree, leftist comedian Bill Maher recently offered praise for the unorthodox manner in which Donald Trump is handling his presidential campaign.

Maher recently said that “it is sort of refreshing to have a politician who isn’t always walking everything back and who isn’t completely preprogrammed.”

Contrasting the current GOP primary leader with 2012’s presidential loser, Maher further explained Trump’s appeal.

“He’s sort of the anti-Mitt Romney,” he asserted. “Mitt Romney, people hated him because he was so robotic. Well, if you don’t like robotic, Trump’s your guy.”

Part of Trump’s success, Maher reasoned, lies in his ability to stand by an unpopular position or statement.

“That’s his genius,” he said, “that he doesn’t apologize for anything. He’s the king of brushing things off his shoulder.”

Of course, a Trump endorsement from the left-wing entertainer is a long shot. He did note, however, that he isn’t sold on Hillary Clinton yet, either.

“Would I prefer Bernie [Sanders] and his ideas?” Maher asked. “Absolutely, but that’s not going to happen.”

Nevertheless, he thinks the result of next year’s election is a foregone conclusion regardless of the traction Trump, Sanders, or any other candidate is able to gain.

“Even if he would somehow get the Republican nomination,” he said of Trump, noting how unlikely that would be, “I don’t think anyone is going to beat Hillary Clinton.”

Could Trump beat Clinton in a general election? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

Watch: Mitt Romney Exposes The Three Words Hillary’s Really Thinking When She Smiles

After earning his party’s nomination in the 2012 presidential primary, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney seems to enjoy his far more removed vantage point as the 2016 White House race gains steam. He joined the hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe this week to share his thoughts on the candidates who have already thrown their hats into the ring.

It was his reaction to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s recent speech, dubbed her campaign’s “secondary rollout” by co-host Mika Brzezinski, on which many media outlets seized. Romney began by reservedly giving Clinton kudos for the content of her speech.

“I thought the text touched the various places she needs to touch to try to keep her base intact,” he said.

The real issue he has with Clinton relates to her perceived insincerity.

“Somehow, though, when you see her on a stage or when she comes into a room full of people,” Romney continued, “she’s smiling with her mouth but her eyes are saying, ‘Where’s my latte?’”

The manner in which Clinton is able to shift her rhetoric to better suit her immediate political goals, Romney suggested, has given many voters the impression that she cannot be trusted.

“I’m sure she’ll become more effective as time goes on,” he said, “but at this stage, what does she really believe? I think people wonder can they really trust Hillary Clinton.”

Recent polling results seem to bolster Romney’s assertion, with 57 percent of respondents telling CNN/ORC pollsters that they do not believe Clinton is honest and trustworthy. That number marks an increase of 14 points in just over a year.

Is Hillary Clinton’s nomination a foregone conclusion? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

‘It Looks Like Bribery’: Mitt Romney Breaks Down Hillary’s Uranium Scandal

Appearing on radio host Hugh Hewitt’s program Thursday, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney responded to growing criticism of Hillary Clinton and the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.

Romney cut to the chase, explaining that he was “stunned” by the accusations, adding that “it looks like bribery.”

He went on to highlight the most egregious examples of alleged wrongdoing, stating that “there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20 percent of America’s uranium production to Russia? And then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals – and by erasing emails.”

Such evasive action on her part, Romney explained, will make finding the truth all the more difficult.

“And you know,” he said, “I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.”

Furthermore, Romney countered the Clinton campaign’s assessment of mounting accusations as unsubstantiated.

“The story that came from the New York Times is pretty straightforward,” he said, “which is that millions upon millions of dollars were given to the Clinton Foundation at the same time by a group of people who had uranium assets; and shortly thereafter, these people came to the State Department for approval to be able to sell these assets to Russia for a huge price tag.”

If the donations and subsequent approval are determined to be connected, Romney assessed, “it’s a form of bribery.”

The scandal extends beyond a presidential campaign, he concluded.

“I mean this is a question about whether or not the United States secretary of state was bribed to grease the sale of strategic assets to Russia.”

Do you think Hillary Clinton is guilty of accepting bribes? Sound off in the comments section below.

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

Rand Paul: Pros And Cons

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

On Tuesday of this week, Rand Paul made it official that he is a candidate for the office of President of the United States. As I did with Ted Cruz a few weeks ago when he announced his candidacy for President, I want to give readers a preliminary assessment of Senator Paul’s pros and cons. Be mindful, again, that this is a preliminary assessment and is subject to change as more information becomes available.

For those who may not know, Rand’s father, former congressman Ron Paul, and I have been friends for many years. I campaigned heavily for Ron’s presidential campaign in 2008, and again in 2012. I even represented Ron in some notable Republican campaign events during that time. And I also spoke on the same platform with Ron and introduced him in several large rallies. And, after Ron dropped out of the Republican primary in 2008, I was approached by many of his supporters to carry the liberty message into the general election as the Constitution Party’s candidate for President. This I did; and when I did, Ron publicly endorsed my candidacy. Through my friendship with Ron, I had the privilege to meet Rand; and, as with his father, I like Rand a lot. Readers need to know that up front.

That said, this preliminary assessment of Rand’s candidacy will be intellectually honest and objective. Readers need to know that, too.

Pros:

*He is his father’s son

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the greatest U.S. congressman in our country’s history. While we have had several outstanding U.S. House members, no one can match Ron’s incredible record. Without a doubt, Ron Paul is the U.S. House of Representatives’ most preeminent champion of liberty. And you know the old saying: the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I believe that is certainly true with Ron’s son, Rand.

And you can believe that establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., believe that, too. As soon as Rand announced his candidacy, neocons such as Senator Lindsey Graham began their attacks against him. Graham went so far as to say that Rand Paul’s foreign policy is worse than Hillary Clinton’s. (That’s because Graham and Clinton are both warmongers, and Rand isn’t.) Rest assured, the GOP establishment will spend the entire primary season trying to make sure that Rand Paul does not receive the Republican nomination.

*Rand’s foreign policy

This is where Rand Paul shines. Like his dad, Rand believes in a constitutional foreign policy. He is opposed to America’s foreign wars of aggression. He is opposed to America’s preemptive war doctrine instituted by G.W. Bush. He is opposed to the Warfare State and all of the entangling alliances that go along with it. In fact, Rand Paul is the ONLY candidate for President from either the Republican or Democrat party who would probably make any significant change in America’s foreign policy.

And quite frankly, the office of President is mostly defined by foreign policy; and in this regard, Rand is probably the only candidate that would be willing to defy the war-mad neocons and bring America’s founding principles back to our State Department and DOD. Ted Cruz won’t do it; Ben Carson won’t do it; Scott Walker won’t do it; Marco Rubio won’t do it; Mike Huckabee won’t do it; Mike Pence won’t do it; Rick Santorum won’t do it; Chris Christie won’t do it; Jeb Bush won’t do it; Hillary Clinton won’t do it; and neither will Martin O’Malley. In reality, when it comes to foreign policy, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Except for Rand Paul, that is. Rand is the ONLY presidential candidate who would potentially restore a constitutional foreign policy to the United States.

*Rand Paul is solid on the Bill of Rights and the right to life

Rand Paul is solid on the right to life and the Second Amendment. But unlike the rest of the presidential candidates, Rand is also solid on the rest of the Bill of Rights. In the name of the “war on terror,” politicians from both parties in Washington, D.C., have mostly eviscerated the Bill of Rights. For all intents and purposes, the Fourth through Tenth Amendments are mere words on paper. Both Republican and Democrat congresses have gutted them to the point that they are unrecognizable from their original intent. Rand Paul is the only presidential candidate who gives more than lip service to the Bill of Rights.

Accordingly, Rand Paul is the only presidential candidate who would probably use the power of the office to alleviate, or perhaps even dismantle, the burgeoning Police State in this country. This is another reason why Lindsey Graham and other neocons in Washington, D.C., hate Rand Paul.

*Rand is the Republican who has the best chance of winning the general election in 2016

Rand’s popularity will come from just about every quarter, except the Washington establishment. He will pull support from not only conservative, Tea Party, and patriot groups, but also from libertarians, independents, college-age and young Americans, and anti-war Democrats.

An MSN report notes, “Paul’s speeches and media coverage have helped him break out of the Republican field. In very early trial heats of the presidential race, Paul regularly gets closer to Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, than his so-called establishment rivals. In a March poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, Paul tied Clinton in Pennsylvania, a state no Democratic candidate for president has lost since 1988.”

See the report at:

Rand Paul Begins 2016 Presidential Campaign, Aiming at ‘Washington Machine’

Rand’s challenge will be winning the Republican nomination. The GOP establishment will go all out to defeat him. But, if he can prevail in the Republican primary, he would undoubtedly be the strongest GOP candidate in the general election. But, remember, the Republican establishment would rather lose with neocons like John McCain and Mitt Romney than win with a principled freedomist like Rand Paul. So, Rand has his work cut out for him.

Cons:

*Illegal immigration and amnesty

So far, Rand has been soft on his stance against illegal immigration and Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals. Rand’s principal opponent in the GOP race will be Ted Cruz; and Cruz’s tough stance against illegal immigration and amnesty is very popular with most Republican voters. If Rand continues to take a soft position on illegal immigration, it will give Cruz a leg up with many of the GOP electorate.

*His support for Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell

The decision to support Mitt Romney for President in 2012 cost Rand a lot of popular support. Romney was a Democrat in Republican clothing. Romney’s socialized medicine program in liberal Massachusetts was the blueprint for Obamacare. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. And Mitt Romney flipped-flopped on so many issues (including the life issue) that he more resembled Silly Putty than he did a serious presidential contender. There was no telling which way Romney was going to bounce next. And Mitch McConnell is the consummate establishment politician. No genuine conservative respects McConnell.

I understand why Rand endorsed Romney and McConnell. He was trying to show the Republican Party that he was willing to work with the GOP leadership. Plus, as the freshman senator from Kentucky, he didn’t want to make a political enemy out of Kentucky’s senior senator (and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader). But endorsing Republican candidates that were fundamentally flawed positionally and constitutionally was something Ron Paul was never willing to do. And that uncompromising commitment of Ron Paul was one of his most endearing qualities. As such, I am extremely honored to be the only candidate for President since Ronald Reagan that Ron Paul endorsed. In my opinion, that says more about Ron than it does me.

When Rand endorsed Romney, it angered untold numbers of principled conservatives. That anger still exists. These folks are worried that Rand will be too willing to work with unprincipled Republicans in the future. This fear is something Rand MUST successfully assuage if he is to unify the base that he needs to win the Republican nomination.

*Rand’s recent homage to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby

This is another area where Rand’s father, Ron, was never willing to compromise. Ron had a constitutionally-correct understanding of America’s relationship with Israel and other Middle Eastern nations. And due to the constitutional ignorance (and scriptural misinterpretation regarding the modern state of Israel, thanks mostly to preachers such as John Hagee) of most Christian conservatives, it was this issue that most alienated many of them from Ron’s presidential campaigns. Doubtless, Rand is trying to circumvent that potential opposition from within the conservative Christian community by showing them, “See, I am not my father.”

Noted political researcher and analyst Joel Skousen put this in perspective recently, saying, “Rand Paul has the same problem [as Ted Cruz]. He’s decided that he can’t get ahead in politics without being a yes-man to the Israeli lobby, and so he takes his pilgrimage to Israel, meets with Netanyahu and other politically connected Israelis and pledges to stand with Israel. The problem with that position, as I’ve explained many times in the WAB [World Affairs Brief], is that Israel’s leaders are all compromised globalists (especially Netanyahu) so Christians have to learn to separate their allegiance to God’s promises of restoring the house of Israel to their homeland and the aggressive globalist policies of the Israeli government.” Amen!

What most Christian conservatives don’t seem to understand is that Ron Paul’s position on Israel (and other foreign nations) is actually the best policy to help the people of the Middle East (including Israelis) that the United States could possibly have. The neocon, pro-war, New World Order (NWO) policies that began under George H.W. Bush, and that continue to the present, are the most destructive policies in the entire world at present. The entire world (including the United States and Israel) are suffering (and will suffer) incalculable tragedy at the hands of these wicked globalists if they are not soon deterred. How tragic that Christian conservatives–who sincerely believe they are being a blessing to Israel by supporting a neocon foreign policy agenda–are actually assisting Israel and America’s worst enemies. And, once again, no other presidential candidate from either party will potentially do anything to challenge the neocon, NWO agenda. If Rand Paul doesn’t do it, no other Republican or Democrat presidential candidate will.

Obviously, it is too early for me to actually endorse a presidential candidate. I am willing to say that, at this juncture, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the two men who seem to stand out. But, since Ted Cruz’s foreign policy is in lockstep with the neocon agenda, and IF Rand Paul can continue to demonstrate a genuine commitment to oppose a neocon foreign policy, he would definitely have a leg up in my book.

And unlike many conservatives, I am NOT impressed with Dr. Ben Carson. His support of government-forced vaccinations is anathema to any person who truly understands the principles of constitutional government and liberty. Anyone who could claim to be opposed to Obamacare and then support government-forced vaccinations is truly confused and directionless.

See the report at:

Carson: No Exemptions On Immunizations

Plus, Dr. Carson talks out of both sides of his mouth regarding gun control. He says he supports the Second Amendment, but then he turns around and says that “It depends on where you live.”

“Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show this past week, Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.

“Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: ‘There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.’

“But when asked whether people should be allowed to own ‘semi-automatic weapons,’ the doctor replied: ‘It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,’ Carson elaborated. However, if you live ‘out in the country somewhere by yourself’ and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, ‘I’ve no problem with that.’”

See the report here:

Ben Carson On Gun Control

I’m sorry; the Second Amendment is an issue I will NOT compromise on. And Dr. Carson’s statements demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the liberty principles behind the Second Amendment. It is those people who live in the most populous–and, therefore, the most dangerous–areas that most require a semi-automatic weapon (rifle or pistol) with which to defend themselves. What good does a firearm do if one is “out in the country somewhere by yourself”? Dr. Carson demonstrates vast ignorance regarding the God-given duty of self-defense. So, I can say with a certain amount of confidence that I will NOT be supporting Ben Carson for President.

So, again, this is my preliminary assessment of Rand Paul’s candidacy. And as I said in my column assessing Ted Cruz’s candidacy, I reserve the right to adjust my thinking one way or another as more information becomes available.

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

Photo credit: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

WATCH What Harry Reid Just Said When Given Another Chance To Own Up To Romney Tax Lies

Image Credit: Fusion

Kudos to Fusion’s Jorge Ramos for pressing Sen. Harry Reid on his unfounded accusations and cynical smears against Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign.

In an interview with the Nevada Democrat, as Breitbart reports, Ramos came right out and asked the powerful senator, “Did you purposefully lie” in proclaiming repeatedly that the GOP candidate didn’t pay any taxes for ten years?

Reid’s answers to the questions posed by Ramos were so disjointed and incoherent, one might reasonably ask if the lawmaker’s recent bathroom encounter with exercise equipment might have resulted in some sort of brain fog.

Reid admitted to Ramos, “Of course [Romney] paid taxes,” while also refusing to apologize or even acknowledge that his scurrilous claims were not at all fair to the GOP candidate or to the American people.

“I have no repentance because it was an issue that was important,” said the senator, who boasted to CNN in an earlier interview that his lies told on the Senate floor were useful in making sure Romney lost the election.

Western Journalism noted how Fox News host Megyn Kelly blasted Reid’s “disgusting” dishonesty that was an “ugly breach of the public trust.”

You can watch Jorge Ramos’ interview with Harry Reid by clicking on the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom