Trump Has A Very Surprising Distant Relative Who Happens To Be A Presidential Candidate

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump may not be as much of the political outsider as purported in interviews and campaign stomps. He is actually related to royalty – and is a distant cousin of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

As it turns out, both are related to John of Gaunt, a 14th century royal. Gaunt, who was the 1st Duke of Lancaster, was the son of King Edward III. According to MyHeritage, Trump is related through his mother, Mary Anne Macleod, back to his 17th great-grandfather, John Beaufort, while Clinton is related through her father and the Rodham family, back to her 17th great-grandmother, Joan Beaufort. The two candidates are 19th cousins. Neither has commented on this fact.

The Duke of Lancaster had the Beaufort children through his third wife, Katherine Swynford. Swynford had been his mistress, but later married Gaunt. His son by his first wife was King Henry IV.

The royal family was most known for their participation in the infamous War of the Roses, where descendants all tried to claim the throne. Henry VII became the first Tudor king after he defeated Richard III in battle.

Having two presidential candidates who are related isn’t new. The website We Are All Related shows that all of the U.S. presidents, except for one, are related. The common ancestor was John “Lackland” Plantagenet, who was the King of England in 1166. The project, completed by 10-year-old BridgeAnne d’Avignon, showed the only president who does not share the royal ancestry with the other presidents was President Martin Van Buren.

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

A News Crew Was Just Killed On Air…Hillary’s Response To The Tragedy Is Almost Predictable

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wasted no time in making a renewed call for more gun control measures following the on-air shootings Wednesday morning of a Virginia television news reporter and her cameraman. 

Within hours of the shooting she tweeted:

She told members of the press this afternoon in Iowa: “I was so stricken to think that these two young people doing the work that you guys do every single day would be murdered on live television.”  

“We have got to do something about gun violence in America,” she continued. “And I will take it on. There are many people who face it and know it, but then turn away because it’s hard, it’s a very political, difficult issue in America… I want to reiterate how important it is we not let yet another terrible instance go by without trying to do something…”

The candidate made clear “doing something” means passing more gun control laws. “There is so much evidence that if guns were not so readily available, if we had universal background checks…that maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage,” she added.

Clinton specifically suggested a five-day waiting period to purchase a gun, though in this instance it apparently would not have made a difference. Alleged shooter Vester Flanigan stated in his manifesto that he purchased his firearm two days after the Charleston shooting in June.

All federally licensed gun control dealers are required to do a background check before selling firearms. However, gun sales between private individuals are not subject to background checks, which is the “universal background check” Clinton apparently seeks.

According to About News, licensed gun dealers are prohibited from selling guns to:

  • Convicted felons and people under indictment for a felony
  • Fugitives from justice
  • Unlawful drug users or drug addicts
  • Individuals who have been determined to be mentally incompetent
  • Illegal aliens and legal aliens admitted under a non-immigrant visa
  • Individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military
  • Persons who have renounced their American citizenship
  • Persons under domestic violence restraining orders
  • Persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes

Regarding the assault weapons ban, a 2004 study found “very, very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.” 

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

WATCH: Journalist Releases Undercover Sting Video, Warns Hillary – More Is Coming

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released undercover video on Wednesday purporting that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is skirting Iowa election law through its voter registration practices.

Time reported the the Clinton campaign went on high alert last week after determining at least two women it believed to be from Project Veritas were seeking to expose illegal activity within the organization. A campaign official expressed confidence the campaign has “upheld the law.” Furthermore, regarding voter registration–the focus of the video–the campaign’s “policy is to register all voters, regardless of their preference in candidates.”

What Project Veritas (PV) discovered, at least in the instructions given by one paid campaign staff member, is that its stated policy is not its practice.

The video opens with an undercover journalist from Project Veritas, who has apparently been posing as a volunteer, being told by an Iowa Hillary Clinton campaign staff member, identified as Sarah Sterner, that she is no longer in any Iowa Hillary offices or events anymore.

“Me?” the “volunteer” (from PV) responds–with a sense of faux disbelief reminiscent of Casablanca’s Captain Renault: “I am shocked — shocked— to find that gambling is going on in here!”  

The video then goes back a day earlier to show staffer Sterner explaining to a PV undercover journalist the campaign’s practice regarding voter registration: first, find out who they support.

“If you open up a conversation as like, ‘Hey, are you registered to vote?’ And they’re, like, ‘no,’ and they want to register, you have to register them,” she says.

“And so that’s why I want to keep our primary focus on, ‘Hey, are you a Hillary supporter?’ And then if not, then great move on, you know?” Sterner concludes.

The narrator, O’Keefe, states that Sterner is explaining how workers can “skirt” Iowa’s election law, citing 39A.2 (1)(b)(5), which states that “A person commits the crime of election misconduct in the first degree if the person willfully … deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the citizens of this state of a fair and impartially conducted election process.”

A Republican field staff member, who wished to remain anonymous, told Time that approach to training volunteers about voter registration is pretty standard practice among the GOP ranks as well.

O’Keefe gained notoriety in 2007 with undercover videos he created with pro-life activist Lila Rose exposing Planned Parenthood practices. In 2009, undercover videos he released about ACORN generated such public outcry that the organization lost its federal funding.

O’Keefe comes on camera at the end of the Hillary campaign video, claiming: “This is just the tip of the iceberg.”

“In fact, stay tuned, Hillary, because we’re shortly going to release a stunning story of election malfeasance at the highest levels of your campaign,” promises O’Keefe. “Check your email.”

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

Planned Parenthood: The War On Womanhood And The War On Black People

Womanhood has been under assault by the Left for decades. Back in the 60s, it became popular to condemn women who wanted to marry and then become moms and homemakers. Feminist leaders and college professors hammered away at women, dissuading them from embracing the ‘prison of domesticity and the humiliation of subservience to men.’ Feminism launched a war that continues to this day, the war against womanhood.

A child of the 60s, Hillary Clinton weighed in on the campaign trail in 1992, snidely condemning traditional women while elevating herself: “I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession.” Her subsequent ‘profession’ became one largely devoted to lying and covering for her philandering husband, then attacking his female accusers and destroying their lives, truly a complete betrayal of women almost solely for the purpose of ‘fulfilling her profession.’

For all its good work encouraging women to look at all their life options, the terrible downside of the women’s liberation movement was setting men and women against one another, and setting women against their own biology. Procreation, once a sacred and honored aspect of femininity, became something to scorn, leading directly to the insistence on abortion. Having children obviously hampered the quest to ‘fulfill one’s profession.’ Where once women were honored as mothers for their nurturing skill and talent, they became hostile to their own special place in the human race–so hostile in fact as to turn on their own offspring and kill them in the name of liberating women, forgetting that half the babies killed in the womb are female.

From the beginning, in 1973, when Roe v. Wade (one of the first examples of judicial activism directly assaulting traditional morality) made abortion legal, the warning cry went up: this is the first step on the road to allowing the killing of all inconvenient life—-the handicapped, the injured, the elderly, and other ‘undesirables.’ Indeed, it was noted then, as it is now, the early leaders of the Planned Parenthood movement, notably Margaret Sanger, stood unashamedly in favor of using contraception and abortion to eradicate people of color, especially black people. So, is it any wonder that today black babies are aborted at tremendously high rates, and that clinics are located largely in neighborhoods primarily occupied by people of color? Hillary has said Margaret Sanger is one of her heroines, raising the question: do black lives really matter in her mind?

When the monstrous practice of partial birth abortion was debated and condemned in the 90s, it was simply more evidence that the slippery slope was nonetheless alive and lethal. Then, with discoveries babies were being killed even in late term, more alarm and resistance was raised.

Today, with the case of the butcher Kermit Gosnell, the warnings of the past are impossible to ignore. Gosnell, a former doctor, was convicted of murdering infants born alive during abortions. With revelations Planned Parenthood has been ‘perfecting’ techniques to harvest late term babies, and sell their body parts and internal organs, the warnings of the past have been exceeded by something unimaginable back then: a profit-driven machine dealing in dead human beings, murdered in the womb and parted out like wreck automobiles. Just so that we are clear, aborting babies for the purpose of selling their organs is a federal crime. Planned Parenthood officials know full well it is a crime; for here they discuss how to accomplish sales without getting busted. Even so, the defenders of abortion and Planned Parenthood insist it is a legal gray area. Morally, there is no gray area, as the majority asserts. In fact, a huge groundswell of outcry from the public is driving the movement to defund Planned Parenthood.

In the bloody wake of 55 million babies murdered since 1973, we now have women on video tape celebrating the macabre enterprise of selling body parts. We see women from Planned Parenthood cheerfully discussing the butchery and commerce surrounding aborted babies, laughing and sipping wine as they discuss ‘line items,’ ‘optimal procurement,’ ‘pricing,’ and ‘Lamborghinis.’ It is a multi-million dollar enterprise, subsidized by the taxpayers; yet Obama says no laws have been broken. (Just how would he know that even before an investigation has commenced?)

The war on womanhood has led us to reject our God-given roles as men and women. The godless Left insists we rely on our own self-serving and limited understanding, all to the destruction of conscience, morality and even common decency, so much so that the so-called saint of the Civil Rights Movement, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., has called for an investigation. Is he calling for an investigation into the criminal activity of Planned Parenthood? No. He wants to see about investigating the organization that blew the whistle on Planned Parenthood! Apparently, Cummings got a call from the White House, even as he is being investigated for the IRS scandal. It is a pattern: Cummings prefers investigating whistleblowers, not perpetrators. Also, so far as we can tell, Cummings is not concerned about black genocide being perpetrated by Planned Parenthood. Blacks are 13% of the population; yet blacks make up 35% of abortions. Never mind the destruction of the black family. At this pace, blacks will not exist in the U.S. in a few years. Source: Black Genocide.

The federal government has been actively engaged for decades in supporting the war on womanhood, and the war on black people, by actively funding Planned Parenthood. Through it all, Hillary Clinton and Democrats stand in solidarity with Planned Parenthood, using our tax dollars to finance the holocaust. If we do not stop them, we will be complicit. Not only that, we will have no moral standing, becoming just like ISIS, willing to slaughter the innocent to accommodate our selfish ambitions.

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

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

Hillary Clinton’s ‘New College Compact’ Raises An Important Question: Did She Ever Take Econ 101?

Editor’s note: This article first appeared at

Today’s version of “a chicken in every pot” is Hillary Clinton’s proposed plan to “make college affordable and available to every American.” This is political catnip, pure and simple. And it is a more delusory form of catnip than Herbert Hoover’s “chicken”; for while everybody needs enough to eat, not everybody needs to go to college.

There is today an oversupply of college degrees. A Federal Reserve study found that half of recent graduates were working in jobs that didn’t require a college degree or not employed at all. For Mrs. Clinton to propose spending $350 billion to subsidize college attendance will exacerbate rather than reduce the glut of college-educated Americans. To propose such wastefulness when federal debt already exceeds $18 trillion is fiscally irresponsible and a slap at American taxpayers. It will also increase the number of graduates experiencing disillusionment when they realize the lack of market demand for their degrees.

The increasingly overt socialistic nature of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign theme is glaringly evident in her “New College Compact.” She laments: “For too long, families have been left to bear the burden of crushing costs” of a college education. Heaven forbid that Americans be expected to pay for what they consume! (A quick “thank you” here to those whose generosity funds academic scholarships to highly qualified and motivated students from poor backgrounds.) Who does Mrs. Clinton think should pay if not the consumer? Her plan explicitly specifies that the federal and state governments (i.e., the taxpayer) should foot the bill at public universities and colleges.

Along with state financing, Hillary Clinton advocates increased state control. She thinks that government should micro-manage post-secondary institutions by telling colleges where they must spend their money (less on administrative expenses), commanding colleges to accept junior college credits (regardless of the four-year colleges’ own academic standards), and deciding when to waive accreditation standards.

Clinton’s disfavor of the private sector is obvious: She expresses sympathy for students with “an expensive degree from a for-profit institution,” only to find that a degree doesn’t lead to a job. Why single out graduates of for-profit colleges and universities when the same disappointment befalls many graduates of not-for-profit institutions, too? And why should students who agree to work for government receive earlier cancellation of their debts than private-sector workers? That’s a double-whammy on the taxpayer, whose taxes first would subsidize the student’s education and then pay the student’s salary after college. And why is it necessary for government to make sure that community colleges offer more “two-year degrees and certificate programs that are valued by employers”? Why can’t private educational entrepreneurs survey the marketplace to discern what degrees and certificates are valued and then profit by providing them?

As for the horrendous problem of college debt blunting the lives of millions of younger Americans, Clinton doesn’t acknowledge that the federal loan program is responsible. If she were not so ideologically averse to the private sector, she might see privatization of the college loan market as the solution. First, though, bankruptcy laws should be revised to include college debt. It is anomalous and unjust to allow mature adults with decades of business experience to erase their debts via bankruptcy if they make a miscalculation, but to deny such mercy and financial relief to young, inexperienced adults. If private lenders issued college loans, and they knew that bankruptcy was an option for young borrowers, then those lenders would calculate that risk. They wouldn’t lend tens of thousands of dollars to students floundering for five or six years or students taking courses that have little value to the job marketplace, and so the glut of over-educated/under-employed young people would shrink.

There is one aspect of Clinton’s higher education plan that makes some ethical, if not economic, sense. Ethically speaking, it seems unfair for the Fed to have engineered low borrowing costs for Uncle Sam while at the same time not sharing some of its windfall by refinancing student debt at lower rates. (Many students are still paying off loans at seven, eight, or nine percent.)

Economically speaking, though, Hillary Clinton has no business promising that the federal government “won’t profit off student loans.” While “profit” apparently is a dirty word to Clinton, any loan program should generate enough interest income to pay for the salaries, offices, etc., of those administering the loan. If the federal college loan program doesn’t cover its own costs, then, once again, the long-suffering taxpayer gets stuck with those costs. The economically rational approach is to let the private sector figure out what an economically viable loan market for college education looks like. Economic losses to our society would decline by billions if privatization of student loans supplanted the socialistic status quo.

The New College Compact proposed by Hillary Clinton is economically wasteful central planning, all wrapped up in the beguiling garb of Santa Claus politics. Caveat emptor. Let the buyer (in this case, the American taxpayer and voter) beware. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

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

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