What May Be Hillary’s Biggest Lie So Far Exposed In This Stunning Image

Hillary Clinton claims she wants to be the “champion” of everyday Americans. She says she can relate to their problems because she wasn’t always a member of the top 1 percent of wage earners in America. The Republican Party has put out a chart to illustrate just how relatable her salary is to those of everyday Americans.

Clinton famously said that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001, even as they purchased a $1.7 million dollar home in Chappaqua in well-to-do West Chester County, just north of New York City. Oprah featured Bill giving a tour of the home on her show. The median household income in the town was approximately $160,000 in 2014.

Her husband, as a former president, received a substantial pension, more-or-less equivalent (taking into account inflation) to $200,000 per year. Hillary was also sworn in as a U.S. Senator the month Bill left office, earning more-or-less the equivalent of $190,000. Their combined salaries were already over twice the median household income of their neighbors in Chappaqua, much less in America overall, where it is $52,000.

But the Clintons didn’t just have Bill’s pension and Hillary’s salary to make do with; the speaking fees began rolling in almost immediately. The New York Times reports that the Clintons have now earned $125 million in speaking fees since leaving the White House. Their combined income last year, according to a financial disclosure the candidate was required to file, was $30 million.

The report shows that Mrs. Clinton alone received over $5 million last year from her memoir of her time as secretary of state, Hard Choices.

The Washington Post broke down all the income the couple has made from speeches since 2001, including the fee range each received per speech. From January of 2014 to May of 2015, the couple earned $25 million.

Since Clinton has already made income inequality an issue in the campaign, the Republican Party decided to put together a state-by-state chart of just how many household incomes it would take to equal the Clintons’ earnings of $30 million.

In their former home state of Arkansas, it would take the salaries of 501 households to equal that of Bill and Hillary. In their current home state of New York, it would take 371.5. And, in the first primary state of Iowa, the incomes of 364.6 households would be needed to match the former first couple’s.

Image Credit: Republican National Committee

Image Credit: Republican National Committee – Click here for complete chart.

Bill Clinton was asked earlier this month if he planned to stop taking enormous speaking fees from groups that might create a conflict of interest if his wife should become president, and he said that he would not. The reason why? “I gotta pay the bills,” he responded.

“The Clintons’ claim that staggering amounts of income from paid speaking fees that raise ethical questions and potential conflicts of interest is simply to ‘pay our bills’ shows how out-of-touch they’ve truly become,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

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

Shocking Proof Of EXACTLY How Dems Want To Forever Change America In This Huge Way

Conservative politicians and pundits, analysts, and authors have long warned that Barack Obama and his liberal cohorts want to grant amnesty to millions of illegals in order to greatly swell the ranks of loyal Democrat voters. The real purpose behind the plan to grant certain rights of citizenship to non-citizens, it’s argued, has far more to do with expanding and consolidating political power than with showing compassion for hardworking families seeking a better life in America.

Here at Western Journalism, we’ve written often about the “hidden agenda” behind the progressives’ insistent push to let many millions of illegals stay in the United States. In a recent opinion piece, L. Todd Wood observed: “Conservatives have known for a long time that all of this executive action, child immigration, and reduced deportations has served an agenda to increase votes for the Democratic party. If they can’t win in the arena of ideas, then give a bunch of illegal immigrants citizenship — and they will vote Democratic for life.”

But now there’s shocking new evidence that a clear majority of Democrat voters are ready to skip beyond a grant of amnesty and give illegal immigrants the right to cast their vote in U.S. elections. Even as Obama’s executive order to defer deportation is stuck in the courts, a significant new survey by a respected polling organization has found that “Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote.”

Rasmussen Reports conducted a national survey of 952 likely voters in late May, asking them: “Should illegal immigrants be allowed to vote if they can prove that they live in this country and pay taxes?”

The question said nothing about amnesty or a waiting period or any other requirement for voting except proof of residence and the payment of taxes. Given only those two stipulations, a majority of Democrats said that the millions of illegals in this country should have the same right to go to the polls and decide who will hold elective office as a legal citizen has.

The Constitution leaves the determination of voters’ qualifications up to the individual states. However, because of judicial rulings that state and local voting practices have been discriminatory, the federal role in elections has increased over time.

Earlier this year, as Katie Pavlich noted in an article for Townhall, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach warned in congressional testimony that illegal voting by non-citizens poses a serious threat to our electoral process. It would seem from this new Rasmussen survey that most Democrats couldn’t care less about that threat. In fact, the majority of the party has apparently moved so far to the left that they would welcome the fundamental and far-reaching transformation to America that illegals given the vote would surely bring.

By the way, that same Rasmussen Reports survey of likely voters also found that 21% of Republicans favor giving illegal immigrants the right to vote.

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

Pres. Candidate SMASHED By Disgusting Blast From His Past That Shreds Major Liberal Myth

ADVISORY: The following article contains language that some may find offensive.

It has long been a favorite talking point for progressives — a very sharp and often effective talking point echoed and amplified through leftist media — that the Republicans are waging a relentless “war on women.” Liberal columnist Eleanor Clift, writing a lengthy October 2014 post for The Daily Beast, continued to beat the “war on women” drum. Clift wrote that “Republicans are still saying crazy stuff about women,” and she predictably (though inaccurately) made reference to the Todd Akin situation where the GOP congressman spoke of what happens to women’s bodies in cases of “legitimate rape.”

“The GOP’s inability to relate to women is apparent once again on the campaign trail. There aren’t the obvious howlers like there were in 2010 when Todd Akin, the patron saint of goofy statements, rhapsodized about how a woman’s body shuts down in cases of ‘obvious rape,’ obviating the need for abortion.”

But if liberals are going to try to keep fighting political battles using the so-called “war on women” as ammunition, they now have on their hands what could be considered a virtual “nuclear bomb” delivered by one of their own — Bernie Sanders.

What has been unearthed is a comment so outlandish, so inflammatory that — one might reasonably speculate — if it had been made by a Republican, the mainstream media would be breathlessly falling all over themselves to deliver non-stop expressions of outrage…Obama’s new attorney general would immediately dispatch a task force to investigate…Hillary Clinton would have already launched a series of attack ads…and feminist rioters would take to the streets in endless protests.

So what is this blast from the past whose heat might well overwhelm the young flames of a recently announced presidential bid by a self-proclaimed socialist Democrat?

Back when he promoted his political agenda under the name Bernard Sanders, the senator who now calls himself “Bernie,” reportedly wrote an essay that appeared in an alternative newspaper in Vermont. In that 1972 essay, writes Dan Joseph of MRC TV, Sanders proclaimed that women fantasize about being gang-raped.

In the article entitled “man-and woman” that was published in the Vermont Freeman, Joseph notes that “Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate.  Even one with as little chance at grabbing his party’s nomination as Sanders currently has.”

Curiously, an image of the article appeared in a May 26, 2015 profile of Bernie Sanders published by Mother Jones, a far-left publication. Generally positive in its tone as it examined the colorful life and times of the ultra-lib presidential contender, the Mother Jones piece captioned the image: “This 1972 Sanders essay, published in an alternative newspaper called the Vermont Freeman, reflected his affinity for Sigmund Freud.”

Toward the top of this essay, Bernard Sanders writes: “A woman enjoys intercourse with her man, as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.” The Sanders essay appeared in print some nine years before the Vermonter was elected to his first public office as the mayor of Burlington. However, his political career began the year before the “gang rape” comment was published, when Sanders reportedly joined the Liberty Union Party.

There is no indication that Bernie Sanders has any sort of professional degree, license, or certification that would support his brazen assertion that such thoughts as he described might actually go through a woman’s mind.

So, one might ask, will Eleanor Clift now include Bernie Sanders in her list of politicians who are “still saying crazy stuff about women?” Or will this be dismissed by the “so what” mainstream media as an irrelevant, long-ago quip from a guy known for saying some pretty, well, interesting things?

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

Trouble For Obama: Dozens Of Congressional Dems Turning Against His Big Power Grab

Democrats in the House and Senate are aligning with Republicans in an attempt to build a legislative dam against sweeping new water rules being imposed by Obama’s EPA — rules that critics claim could sink business and destroy private property rights. As The Hill reports, “Dozens of congressional Democrats are joining Republicans to back legislation blocking the Obama administration’s new rule to redefine its jurisdiction over the nation’s waterways.”

On Wednesday, Western Journalism told you about the controversial new Environmental Protection Agency mandate that some consider more of a power grab than an effort to keep America’s waterways clean and healthy. Technically, the new rule is couched as an extension of the Clean Water Act of 1972, thus allowing EPA regulators and bureaucrats to significantly broaden their reach and authority without working through Congress.

This move comes after two separate Supreme Court rulings prohibiting the EPA and the Corps of Engineers’ previous attempts to expand on the Clean Water Act — a move that, if fully implemented, Heritage Foundation Agricultural Policy Research Fellow Daren Bakst argues would be “devastating to property rights.”

Despite congressional attempts to push back against the EPA-led action, the regulation was made final on Wednesday. The article in The Hill notes that the stated purpose of the rule is to “clarify that small streams, wetlands, headwaters and tributaries are covered by the Clean Water Act and the rules that go along with it.”

But Capitol Hill opponents of the EPA’s aggressive action are not giving up the fight. “Three moderate Democrats in the Senate and 24 in the House have joined the GOP in opposition, but leave them far from the two-thirds majorities they would need for a veto-proof vote to overturn the rule.”

It comes as no surprise that a spokesman for the Obama administration has attacked Republicans opponents of the rule; but in his slam against adversaries to the EPA action, the Obama mouthpiece also took a brutal swing at Democrats fighting the measure.

The Hill coverage of the controversy includes this incendiary bit of administration rhetoric: “’The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who want to threaten our clean water,’ said Brian Deese, Obama’s top environmental adviser.”

One of the Senate Democrats — threatening “polluters” — fighting to undo the EPA waterways rule through legislative action is West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, a frequent critic of Obama’s environmental initiatives.

…Manchin accused the EPA of “once again dangerously overreaching its boundaries by expanding the definition of water sources it can regulate.”

He said the rule “will certainly have a significant impact on West Virginia’s economy, hindering businesses, manufacturing and energy production.”

Among the most vocal critics of the rule are farmers and ranchers who claim the EPA action would mandate a costly permitting process for, and ultimately federal control over, everyday agricultural tasks like digging ditches and spraying fertilizer.

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

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