In a slew of tweets over the last 18 hours, Hillary Clinton has brought the gender pay gap to the forefront of her presidential campaign, begging the question: What on earth is she thinking?

Her feigned indignation is an acute example of the pot calling the kettle black. Hillary herself has a long history of paying her own female staffers less than their male counterparts. Clinton, the left’s champion of women, paid her female Senate staffers 72 cents to every dollar that male staffers were paid.

When Clinton was a senator, the median annual salary for a woman working in her office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man. So she can’t have it both ways — fighting for equal pay for women yet not paying her own female staffers equal to her male staffers.

 photo Male-Female-comparison_zpsy8w1e4iy.png

What’s more, the progressive Left, as well as Hollywood liberals, have been pushing the false “gender wage gap” narrative that women receive 77 cents to every dollar that men earn. Time and time again, this falsehood has been refuted by economic experts.

“No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted, it always comes back,” said American Enterprise Institute resident and host of “The Factual Feminist,” Christina Hoff Sommers. “The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.”

Not only is Clinton at fault here, but the White House is as well. We’ve heard the same tired rhetoric and talking points from Obama and his administration. In 2014, it was reported that the average White House male employee earns $88,600 while the average female earns $78,400 — a 13 percent difference.

Obama has gone to great lengths to propose and advocate for legislation such as the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Clinton supports, that would supposedly narrow the fictional pay gap between men and women. Needless to say, Obama should’ve taken a look into his own administration before spearheading such an initiative.



What’s more, according to the Pew Research Center, women are earning more post-secondary degrees than their male counterparts, but somehow liberal progressives still rally around a ridiculous gender disparity.

Hillary knows part of her claim to the presidency is her status as the first woman who would hold the office. It can’t be based, as many have pointed out, on a roster of achievements, which seem hard to locate. And so, despite the hypocrisy, she plows ahead.

"Hillary Clinton understands that women — especially unmarried women — are a critical voting bloc, and she has been laser-focused on them from the minute she launched her campaign," said Sabrina Schaeffer, Independent Women’s Forum executive director. "Like so many Democrats, she has presented the workplace as hostile to women and continues to insist that issues like the so-called wage gap and paid leave are limiting women’s success."

Schaeffer added, "Of course it’s well-known that the ‘wage gap’ is grossly overstated. And voters ought to be reminded that while Hillary Clinton will frame this discussion in terms of protecting women, she is pushing for legislation that will ultimately increase the cost of employing women and limit women’s choices and success."

Once overall "equal pay" is mandated, women will have to be paid more for normally lower-paying jobs, making it less tempting to hire them.

Hillary’s hypocrisy doesn’t stop at the gender wage gap issue. She has a long history of silencing her husband’s accusers of sexual misconduct, even though on the campaign trail she pretends to be an advocate and champion for victims of sexual assault.

Hillary is pandering to female voters, especially those in Iowa, hoping they will cast their ballots for her because of her gender. In the hours leading up to tonight’s Democratic town hall, Hillary’s final pitch to Iowa voters, her abysmal record when it comes to women haunts her – or it should.