Hillary Just Reacted To Horrific Planned Parenthood Videos With 1 Word That Will Shock Many

Given Hillary Clinton’s reputation for not always telling the truth, it might come as little surprise that the Democrat presidential hopeful just said something misleading and inaccurate — one might graciously say Mrs. Clinton misspoke or overstated the case — in her defense of Planned Parenthood. But the one word she used to characterize the recently released videos that have upset people across the political spectrum will come as a shock to many.

In a one-on-one interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, Hillary said: “Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all in our country.” However, what the Democrat front-runner told the newspaper in the early primary state was flat-out wrong on one, and quite likely two, counts.

In the first place, while it’s been providing what advocates call “family planning” services for about a hundred years — including many millions of abortions to prevent women from increasing the size of their families — it is highly doubtful the organization has been offering cancer screenings “for more than a century,” as its early roots date back to 1916, when Margaret Sanger’s first clinic was all about birth control. Preventing pregnancy was the group’s chief objective for many decades.

Clinton’s big goof was claiming that the Planned Parenthood services she lauded are performed “all in our country.” A quick search of the organization’s website shows that not to be true, and that the group’s global footprint is quite extensive.

“For more than 40 years,” according to a page on the site, “Planned Parenthood Global has been working overseas in partnership with local advocates, medical service providers, youth leaders and more to ensure that women, men, and young people in some of the world’s most neglected areas have access to the health care they need to control their bodies and their futures.”

The website page explains that those overseas services include sex education, providing contraceptives, and increased access to abortion.

Beyond the glaring misconceptions Hillary Clinton is trying to peddle about Planned Parenthood’s services, there’s the more surprising word she just used to describe the three undercover videos that show top executives and doctors working for the organization talking about the sale of body parts from aborted babies.

The Union Leader newspaper reports that Mrs. Clinton has, for the first time, said something negative that calls into serious question the practices of the nation’s most active provider of abortion services — a group she has long championed.

Calling them “disturbing,” Hillary Clinton said undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetal tissue raise questions about the process nationwide.

“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing,”

Mrs. Clinton did not endorse a GOP-led effort to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood — Senate leaders have indicated there will likely be a vote to defund the organization before the body takes its fast-approaching August recess. Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually in federal funds, accounting for about half its operating budget.

One of the GOP senators leading the effort to take the many hundreds of millions of federal dollars away from Planned Parenthood is Kentucky’s Rand Paul, also a candidate for president on the GOP side. At an anti-abortion rally on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Paul called on Clinton to return any donations from the organization that routinely gives big money to pro-choice Democrats.

As the Washington Post reports, Rand Paul told the abortion protestors gathered outside the Capitol: “Hillary Clinton’s hands are stained by accepting this money.”

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

What Just Happened In The House Could Make Planned Parenthood’s Worst Nightmare A Reality

She’s been trying for years to stop the flow of federal funds to Planned Parenthood. Now it appears that Tennessee Congresswoman Diane Black may be able to ride the crest of the latest controversy over the practices of the nation’s largest abortion provider — to move legislation forward on the swelling wave of discontent, even disgust, as she tries to stop hundreds of millions of federal dollars from being deposited into Planned Parenthood bank accounts.

In the aftermath of the release of two shocking undercover videos showing executives of the organization discussing the harvesting and possible sale of fetal body parts, new momentum is building on Capitol Hill to cut off financial support for Planned Parenthood.

Now, GOP Rep. Black — a nurse for more than 40 years and an outspoken member of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus — has introduced the “Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015.” On her official website, Rep. Black says of the bill:

The legislation has the support of 80 original cosponsors and would place an immediate moratorium on all federal funding of Planned Parenthood for the span of one year while Congress conducts a full investigation into the organization’s activities. Introduction of the bill follows the release of multiple undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing the harvesting of aborted babies’ tissue and organs.

Planned Parenthood has reportedly received more than half-a-billion dollars in federal funds in each of the last several years. This new attempt to strip that funding from the embattled organization seems to be a serious threat to the group’s generally reliable support from taxpayers, many of whom want no part in keeping open the doors of such an organization.

Politico notes that GOP leaders in both the House and Senate have signaled they will push hard to defund Planned Parenthood — the Politico article describes the “planned crackdown” as looking “increasingly real.”

“House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday he’s anticipating amendments to strip the money over the course of the fall government funding debate,” according to Politico. “That’s in addition to a spate of Hill hearings he said are aimed at learning ‘the facts … and what’s truly is going on.’

“Meanwhile, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said he expects lawmakers to offer a Planned Parenthood amendment to the highway bill, a major piece of must-pass legislation that’s slated for consideration beginning this week.”

Despite the shocking, widely-viewed videos produced by The Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood officials have denied they profit off of fetal organs cut from aborted babies.

When she took to the House floor Tuesday in support of her defunding effort, Rep. Black spoke in emotional terms about the organization whose work she clearly opposes.

CNS News quotes her floor speech, in part: “‘Planned Parenthood doesn’t empower women – it deceives them at their most difficult and vulnerable moments. It values convenience over truth and profit over life.’”

The Hill elaborates on the congressional effort to pull funding from the abortion provider: “Black’s legislation in the House coincides with pledges by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) —- both presidential candidates —- to force votes on defunding Planned Parenthood by adding amendments to the must-pass highway funding bill this week.”

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

Here’s How The Liberal NY Times Just Ignored The ‘Truth’ From Ted Cruz…And Why

When he was talking about the release of his new book, A Time for Truth, Sen. Ted Cruz said he wanted to counter what he views as “unfair ‘caricatures’ of the right as ‘stupid,’ ‘evil,’ or ‘crazy.’” So reported Breitbart News about an interview the 2016 GOP contender gave to the Associated Press in which the Texas senator argued that, for conservatives such as himself, “The image created in the mainstream media does not comply with the facts.”

Ironically, the conservative presidential candidate’s comment regarding the “mainstream media” and not complying with “the facts” was, in a startling way, prophetic. As the website Politico reports, the senator’s new book is being left out of a key list The New York Times regularly publishes, despite having sold an impressive 11,854 copies during its first week in release.

Image Credit: amazon.com

Image Credit: amazon.com

“The New York Times informed [publisher] HarperCollins this week that it will not include Ted Cruz’s new biography on its forthcoming bestsellers list, despite the fact that the book has sold more copies in its first week than all but two of the Times’ bestselling titles, the On Media blog has learned,” says Politico.

The Times’ slight of A Time for Truth comes despite the book’s noteworthy inclusion on a number of other top-seller lists compiled by respected organizations that track book sales. The Politico piece observes:

“A Time For Truth” has also sold more copies in a single week than Rand Paul’s “Taking a Stand,” which has been out for more than a month, and more than Marco Rubio’s “American Dreams,” which has been out for six months. It is currently #4 on the Wall Street Journal hardcover list, #4 on the Publisher’s Weekly hardcover list, #4 on the Bookscan hardcover list, and #1 on the Conservative Book Club list.

The excuse offered by the Times’ staff for the absence of Truth from its bestsellers list was, according to Politico, that the book didn’t meet the newspaper’s “standard” in its analysis of book sales.

After news of the omission of Cruz’s book from the Times’ closely-watched list began to circulate and generate criticism of the paper’s treatment of the conservative senator’s well-received biography, Politico reported getting a further clarification from the Times. A spokesperson for the liberal newspaper reportedly said, “In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.”

Apparently, The New York Times gave no evidence for their finding that Ted Cruz’s A Time for Truth wasn’t worthy.

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

Thanks To The American Church, SCOTUS Has Legalized ‘Gay Marriage’

By now, everyone on the planet knows that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has rendered a decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. In a landmark 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan ruled that states may not prohibit homosexual couples from getting “married.” The reasoning of their decision was based on the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process” clause.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said: “Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”

Obviously, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right of homosexuals to “marry.” But there is something in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right to keep and bear arms. Using the reasoning and conclusion of the Court’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, states have absolutely no authority to deny recognition of concealed carry permits that have been issued in other states. In other words, if the 14th Amendment protects an unspecified right (same-sex “marriage”), it certainly protects a specified right (the right to keep and bear arms). And since some states recognize the right of citizens to openly carry firearms, this right should also be determined to be protected by the 14th Amendment. If states must recognize driver’s licenses (and now same-sex “marriage” licenses) issued in other states, it is now clear that they must also be required to recognize concealed weapon licenses issued in other states.

See this report:

SCOTUS Same-sex Marriage Decision May Have Just Legalized The Concealed Carry Of Loaded Firearms Across All 50 States, Nullifying Gun Laws Everywhere  

It should be obvious to any objective person that by providing 14th Amendment protection to homosexual “marriage,” SCOTUS has banned most gun control laws throughout the country. However, I seriously doubt that the five justices passing the same-sex “marriage” decision had gun control in mind. Nevertheless, that shouldn’t stop gun rights activists from taking advantage of the SCOTUS decision.

Many libertarian jurists are lauding the SCOTUS same-sex decision as a victory for the right of individuals to enter into contracts with one another. But marriage is more than a “contract.” It is an institution–an institution created by GOD. No human authority can redefine what our Creator has already defined in both revealed and Natural Law. Forevermore, true marriage can only be between a man and a woman–a SCOTUS decision notwithstanding.

Senator Rand Paul wisely noted: “While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

“The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

“I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

“Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

“Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

“It seems some rights are more equal than others.

“Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.

“Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

“This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

“Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: ‘In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.’

“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

“Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

See the report here:

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

Note that Dr. Paul correctly recognized that the SCOTUS attempted to render a “redefinition” of marriage. That it did.

Since the beginning of human history (not to mention Western Civilization), marriage has been recognized as being between a man and a woman. Again, marriage is much more than a civil contract.

As I have noted several times, the right of civil contracts includes the right of homosexuals to enter into civil unions. But marriage is NOT a civil union. Nor is it merely a civil contract. In fact, real marriage is NOT a civil matter at all. It is a spiritual matter. Civil governments can recognize or not recognize all they want; it doesn’t change the definition of marriage one iota. Civil governments can no more redefine marriage than they can redefine worship or prayer. Marriage is a divine institution. Therefore, it is completely outside the scope and jurisdiction of SCOTUS or any other civil authority.

The problem is that many years ago, the Church decided to allow civil government licensing authority over marriage. When they did this, they absconded divine authority over marriage and reduced it into nothing more than just another government-sanctioned civil contract. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

The problem is not SCOTUS; the problem is the CHURCH.

Rand Paul is right: “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

So far, the only State to have the correct response to the SCOTUS decision is the State of Alabama, led by my friend Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. The State of Alabama is encouraging county courthouses to not issue ANY marriage licenses. And this is exactly what many Alabama counties are doing. This strategy should be replicated by all fifty states and the counties within those states.

Furthermore, pastors across the country should stop performing ALL marriages that are licensed by the State. In other words, the Church should do what it did for some 1,800+ years of Church history: keep the State out of the marriage business.

But all of that doesn’t change the intention of the Court decision and the agenda of the radical secularists who are the impetus behind the decision and their attempt to expunge all semblances of Christianity (and morality) from America’s public life.

In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy attempted to throw people of faith a bone by stating: “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. 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.”

However, notice that Kennedy said that religious people may “advocate” for traditional marriage, but he said nothing about non-compliance. What will happen to those pastors and churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples? If you think for one minute that radical homosexuals are going to be content with a Supreme Court decision that doesn’t have enforcement power, you are very mistaken.

Already, allies of the militant homosexual agenda are promoting public censorship and the loss of tax exempt status for those churches that refuse to submit to the Supreme Court decision.

My friend Cal Thomas got it right: “Given their political clout and antipathy to Christian doctrines, some gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them. As with legal challenges to the owners of bakeries that have been in the news for refusing to bake a cake for same-sex weddings, activists who demand total conformity to their agenda will seek to put out of business and silence anyone who believes differently.”

See Cal’s column here:

You’ve Been Warned, America, Gay Marriage Is Just The Beginning

Cal is exactly right. The purge has already begun.

“CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that it wasn’t legal ‘to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people’ while recounting Scalia’s prior dissent in Lawrence v. Texas on Friday’s ‘CNN Newsroom.’”

See the report here:

CNN’s Toobin: Not ‘Legal’ For Scalia To Talk About Gay People Like He Used To

Again, this is from CNN’s SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST. “Beam me up, Mr. Speaker.” Anti-Christian purgers are already advocating the cancellation of the right of free speech in the wake of the SCOTUS decision.

Look at this: “A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA has announced henceforth it intends to censor certain views about marriage deemed no better than racism, sexism, anti-Semitism.

“John L. Micek, editorial page editor and formerly state capital reporter, made the announcement shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its imposition of gay marriage on the county. Micek wrote:

“‘As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.’ In a Tweet later in the day, Micek doubled down, ‘This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic letters. To that we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.’”

Here is the report:

Pennsylvania Newspaper Censors All Dissent On Same-sex Marriage

You can take this to the bank: there will be hundreds of local and State laws reflecting the SCOTUS decision and hundreds of lawsuits forthcoming against people who seek to live by their religious convictions by not directly participating in homosexual “marriages.” And that means there will be hundreds of court decisions ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, hundreds of arrest warrants, civil fines, prison sentences, etc. Anyone who doesn’t see this coming is blind.

Then there is this column written by Mark Oppenheimer, who writes for America’s flagship newspaper, The New York Times, calling for the elimination of tax-exempt status for churches on the heels of the SCOTUS gay “marriage” decision.

See Mark’s column here:

Now’s The Time To End Tax Exemptions For Religious Institutions

You can mark it down: his will not be the last such call.

So, this begs the question, what will all of these Romans 13 “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” preachers do now? When they are told by the IRS and local civil authorities to “marry” homosexuals or lose their tax exemption–or maybe even go to jail–what will they do?

All of this goes back to what I’ve been saying for years: the Church is to blame for this mess. Pastors are to blame for this mess.

For decades, pastors and churches allowed the state to supplant the authority of Christ over them. They volunteered to become creatures of the state by submitting to the IRS 501c3 non-profit, tax-exempt status. By doing so, they forfeited their independence and autonomy (not to mention their spiritual identity and authority) and became nothing more than a state-created non-profit organization. Again, now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Actually, I think it’s time for pastors and churches to decide once and for all to whom they belong and what they are. And if that means losing their precious tax-exempt status, SO BE IT.

For the sake of tax exemption, pastors and churches have stayed mostly silent on virtually every evil contrivance of civil government under the sun. Most of them said nothing when SCOTUS expunged prayer and Bible reading from our schools; most of them said nothing when the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which is almost copied word for word from Adolf Hitler’s gun control act) was passed; most of them said nothing when SCOTUS legalized the murder of unborn babies; most of them said nothing with the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, indefinite detention of American citizens under NDAA, and just recently, when the Republican Congress collaborated with Barack Obama to cast America’s national sovereignty upon the altar of international “free trade” deals. For the sake of tax exemption, the vast, vast majority of today’s pastors and churches are totally silent about almost EVERYTHING.

So, what will America’s pastors and churches do now? What will they do when they must choose between “marrying” same-sex couples and losing tax exemption? If their track record is any indicator, we know what most of them will do: THEY WILL SUBMIT TO CAESAR.

Plus, the SCOTUS decision opens the door for a host of other possibilities. If every consenting adult has an absolute right to enter into civil contracts, how can a State prohibit polygamy? In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said that the Court’s decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” made the future legalization of polygamy inevitable. Where does it end?

Popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh agrees with Justice Roberts. Read Rush’s analysis here:

Rush Limbaugh: Here’s What’s Next For Marriages

And if a State must recognize polygamous “marriages,” what’s next? Where will it end?

And there is one more thing that almost no one is willing to talk about: what is at stake here is the national acceptance of sexual perversion. The SCOTUS decision lends national approbation to an act that our Creator has condemned with the strongest language. (See Romans chapter one.) It has lent national approbation to an act that Western Civilization has always (rightly) regarded as deviant.

Understand this: once any society universally embraces and promotes the sodomite lifestyle, there is no going back. One cannot find a single civilization in history that has survived once homosexuality has become a driving, dominant force over it. It is both a divine and Natural Law. There is a huge difference between recognizing the civil rights of individuals to live immorally (that is a personal matter between the individual and God) and forcing society as a whole to grant societal acceptance and recognition to the immoral act. To quote Rand Paul again: “The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.” Yet, that is exactly what the Supreme Court has done.

But, once again, the fault is the Church. The Church has refused to be the moral leader of the country. Things like homosexuality are too “controversial” for most pulpits. It is a forbidden subject. And too many churches that have been willing to address the issue have done so with such a lack of love and compassion as to do more harm than good. To not speak the truth is bad; to not speak the truth in love is worse.

And dare I say that many of our Christian churches, schools, colleges, and universities have become breeding grounds for homosexual behavior. The absence of male leadership is epidemic in the Church–and in the home, for that matter. And by leadership, I do not mean dictatorship. But true, godly, strong, kind, loving male leadership has eroded significantly from twentieth, and now twenty-first, century churches.

The Church is the moral rudder of a nation. The SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” is the result of the Church abandoning its moral leadership. The Church surrendered its spiritual and moral authority to the state. Why should it now be surprised when the state chooses to not recognize a moral authority that the Church, itself, refuses to recognize?

P.S. In honor of Independence Day, we are again offering THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. This is a giant compilation of over 50 of America’s greatest documents in one volume. THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS cannot be found in stores or anywhere else. And this is a limited printing, so our supply will not last long.

Speaking of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, he has a copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, as does former congressman Ron Paul.

So, don’t just shoot off fireworks; give your children and loved ones the documents that birthed the greatest free nation on earth, and let them read the stirring words of our forebears for themselves. Unfortunately, most schools–even private and Christian schools–do not require the reading of these wonderful documents. How much longer before these documents are completely forgotten, or even banned?

Again, this is a limited printing; so order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now.

To order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

The Freedom Documents

And to read a more detailed description of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

A Great Way To Celebrate Independence Day

© 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.

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 – Equipping You With The Truth

GOP Candidates Quickly Return Tainted Donations… What About Hillary?

What do Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Hillary Clinton all have in common? Tainted political contributions.

What do they not have in common? A moral compass when it comes to those contributions.

The suspect in last week’s horrific attack in Charleston, SC, wrote a manifesto on his website which named the Council of Conservative Citizens as his source for first learning of what he termed “brutal black-on-white murders.” This knowledge is believed to have contributed to the twisted worldview which led to his brutal rampage.

Hillary Clinton donations

The leader of the Council of Conservative Citizens is a man by the name of Eric Holt III. Mr. Holt is thought to be a white supremacist and has contributed to the campaigns of both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, among others.

When Cruz’s and Paul’s campaigns learned of Mr. Holt’s connections to the Charleston shooter, they acted swiftly and decisevely in returning the supremacist’s donations.

“Senator Cruz believes that there is no place for racism in society,” a statement from Cruz’s campaign reads. “Upon learning about Mr. Holt’s background and his contributions to the campaign, he immediately instructed that all of those donations be returned.”

Rand Paul’s campaign is also reported to have received contributions amounting to $2,250 from Mr. Holt. RandPAC is donating all of the monies it has received from Mr. Holt to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund to assist the victims’ families.

This is important, you guys. Two GOP candidates find out they’ve received contributions from a man indirectly related to a horrific crime, and immediately return or redistribute those funds.

Let’s compare that to the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, shall we? As the New York Times pointed out, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.

Hillary Clinton saudi arabia moneyYou know… countries where women are regularly abused, honor killings are frequent, and gays are hung… Hillary’s accepted millions of dollars from those countries.

When is Hillary going to return that money? Anybody?

Tonight, the media will tell you (repeatedly) that Dylan Roof, the alleged Charleston shooter, was inspired by a man who’s donated thousands to both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. But don’t expect them to mention the millions Hillary’s taken from countries where women are second class, expendable citizens.

Because that, my friends, would be responsible journalism… and it’s what’s incredibly needed in America today. Our hat’s off to the campaigns of Senators Cruz and Paul. We hope Hillary Clinton will someday follow their examples.

Follow me on Twitter.

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 – Equipping You With The Truth