Bill Clinton Accuser Resurfaces With A Giant Truth Bomb That Could Doom Hillary

More than two decades since her allegations nearly destroyed the first President Clinton, Paula Jones is speaking out in an effort to prevent the second. One of several women to allege Bill Clinton sexually harassed her, Jones filed a lawsuit against him two years into his first presidential term, asserting that he asked her for sex years earlier in Arkansas.

Based on the intimate knowledge she claims to possess about the former first couple, Jones recently shared several reasons she thinks Hillary Clinton would make a terrible president.

“She should not be running with the terrible history they have,” she said in an interview with Daily Mail Online.

Naturally, Jones had a few thoughts about the man she claims propositioned her in a hotel room once again residing in the White House.

“Who would want Bill Clinton back a second time, doing the same stuff he was doing before, philandering with women?” she asked.

When it comes to Hillary, however, it is clear Jones has little confidence in her ability to lead.

“He is going to be telling her what to do,” Jones said of the Clintons’ relationship. “It’s a partnership. They have a political relationship, that is all it is.”

Jones also insisted that Hillary knew about her husband’s infidelity but remained with him – and lied to protect him – in an effort to advance her own political career.

“If she is for the everyday person,” Jones wondered, “why did she not stand up for the women when she knew what her husband did? There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband. She knew what was happening and just to ignore it – it was a political relationship and suited them both.”

The couple has a “history of not being truthful,” Jones continued, adding that she believes Hillary Clinton is viewing her presidential bid as “an ego thing.”

Jones is the second Bill Clinton accuser to publicly criticize Hillary in recent months. As Western Journalism reported in April, Kathleen Willey insisted she would be an inept and untrustworthy president.

“I haven’t seen one single accomplishment that would give her the credentials to be president of the United States,” she said.

Do you think a second Clinton presidency would be bad for America? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

Watch: Viewers Immediately Noticed Something Odd About Hillary’s Latest Speech

Appearing in South Carolina this week, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addressed a gathering of the state’s Democratic Women’s Council Wednesday. Within minutes, reaction to her speech began pouring in via social media – however, the responses had less to do with the content of her remarks than the accent with which she delivered them.

Echoing criticism she received as a candidate in 2008, pundits on both sides of the political aisle asserted that the inauthentic southern accent she used in the speech appeared to be nothing more than an effort to pander to South Carolina voters.

Much of the criticism aimed at her perceived affectation centered around the fact that it was altogether unbelievable. Fox News commentator and actual southerner Todd Starnes offered some worthwhile advice on the matter:


Satarist Eric Williams also took a jab at Clinton with a fictitious account of the one woman in attendance who actually believed the former first lady’s pandering was authentic.

“Stacey Richter, a mother of three, made it to the rally and was initially pulled in by the performance,” he wrote.

After experiencing an immediate connection with Clinton, Williams imagined that Richter began hearing chatter from other attendees insinuating that the accent was fake, news she took like a knife to the gut.

Plenty of other Twitter users also saw Clinton’s performance as the perfect opportunity to have some fun at her expense.



Last month, The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway identified Hillary Clinton’s penchant for forced posturing as one of the eight reasons she believes the scandal-plagued campaign is doomed.

“Hillary Clinton’s skill set,” she wrote, “does not include pandering with even mild convincingness.”

Do you think Hillary will attract new voters by changing her accent? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

Watch: 92-Year-Old Woman Does Incredible Thing For The First Time In 70 Years

Though she had not been in its cockpit in seven decades, World War II pilot Joy Lofthouse took to the sky earlier this month in the same model of fighter plane she flew in her 20s. Now 92, the Briton admitted that some of the intricacies of flying had been lost over the years.

Prior to takeoff, the Gloucestershire nonagenarian got nervous and admitted feeling her age; however, once in the air, the experience was unparalleled.

“It’s very hard to describe the feeling,” she said. “It almost makes one feel young again.”

In 1945, Lofthouse was part of the all-female Air Transport Auxiliary responsible for flying Spitfires between war zones and factories. She was one of just 164 women permitted to pilot the aircraft during World War II.

Her recent flight was coordinated to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the end of the war’s European theater.

“It’s incredible to be in a Spitfire again after so long,” she said. “I’m so lucky to be able to fly it again.”

Though the aircraft was largely the same as she remembered it after more than 70 years, she noted that one addition made her latest flight more engaging.

“We had no radio,” she said of her experience during World War II, “and once you took off, it was complete silence. That was the big difference today – there was someone talking all the time.”

After so many years, Lofthouse concluded that she has not found any activity that can compare to piloting a Spitfire. She called it “the nearest thing to having wings of your own and flying.”

Are you glad she got one more opportunity to take off in a Spitfire? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

Shocking Abortion Argument This Powerful Woman Just Made Proves The Other Side’s Point

In a recent Huffington Post editorial, feminist leader Terry O’Neill described her desire to see even more abortions in America as a convoluted way to reduce the number of infant deaths. Comparing the murderous act of abortion to the use of contraceptives, the National Organization for Women president called it “essential health care that saves lives.”

With the expressed purpose of ending a new life, incredulous sources like Life News wondered how O’Neill could reconcile her seemingly incongruous opinion with the true nature of abortion.

“How does O’Neill get to the conclusion promised in the title, that ‘abortion care’ saves lives?” asked Life News writer Matt Yonke. “Easy! She ignores 50% of the people involved in every abortion.”

The Blaze contributor Darrell Cheney penned a point-by-point refutation of O’Neill’s points, concluding her overarching argument “is completely unfounded.”

O’Neill cites low birth weight and “maternal depression and anxiety” as reasons unintended pregnancies should end with the death of an unborn child.

The pro-abortion activist continued by lamenting the fact that “more infants are not surviving to their first birthday,” a phenomenon she chalks up to “states like Texas and North Carolina” that “restrict access” to abortion mills.

On the same day her editorial was published, O’Neill retweeted several pro-abortion comments to her personal Twitter page.


As Yonke pointed out, O’Neill’s repetitive use of the phrase “abortion care” should be seen as an attempt to normalize a fringe belief that killing humans in the womb is somehow akin to healthcare.

“Don’t let the phrase ‘abortion care’ go by unchallenged if it’s used in your presence,” he urged his readers. “All that’s required for a pernicious phrase like ‘abortion care’ to slip into the American lexicon is for you and me to say nothing.”

Is abortion morally wrong, a necessary evil, or a vital form of healthcare? Share your thoughts in the comments section below?

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

Alert: Obama’s Newest Executive Action Could Shred One Of Your Basic Rights

Recent reports indicate federal bureaucrats are finalizing the details of a behemoth new Environmental Protection Agency mandate that would supersede property owners’ rights on any piece of land that contains any body of water – including a ditch that fills with rain water.

Heritage Foundation Agricultural Policy Research Fellow Daren Bakst explained the ramifications of the rule, which will update the Clean Water Act of 1972, in an interview with The Blaze.

“Property owners will not be able to engage in activities they should be able to engage in,” he said. “This will be devastating to private property rights.”


Working in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA has developed guidelines declaring additional bodies of water – in addition to the lakes, rivers and streams addressed in the 1972 law – protected.

This move comes after two separate Supreme Court rulings prohibiting the EPA and USACE’s previous attempts to expand on the Clean Water Act.

The EPA published an article explaining its motivation in promoting the new government mandate and addressing public backlash over its interest in ditches and other insignificant water accumulations.

“We’re limiting protection to ditches that function like tributaries and can carry pollution downstream – like those constructed out of streams,” the blog post stated. “Our proposal talked about upland ditches, and we got feedback that the word ‘upland’ was confusing, so we’ll approach ditches from another angle.”

Though the Obama administration is poised to announce the final version of the rule change, opponents continue to voice their criticism.

House Republicans even picked up some bipartisan support in a recent vote to block the rule. Speaker John Boehner explained why many in the chamber oppose it.

“The administration’s decree to unilaterally expand federal authority is a raw and tyrannical power grab that will crush jobs,” he declared.

Should federal agencies have control over private property? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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