Mike Huckabee Shares Touching ‘Medal Of Honor Day’ Tributes

medal of honor

In recognition of a holiday he lamented “gets little notice in most of our country,” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee dedicated his Facebook profile to spotlighting military heroes Wednesday.

“Today is National Medal of Honor Day,” he wrote. “It’s a time for us to remember and thank the greatest heroes our country has ever known – our Medal of Honor Recipients, both living and dead.”

He began by highlighting the accomplishments of fellow Arkansasan, U.S. Army First Lieutenant Edgar Harold Lloyd.

“Company E, 319th Infantry, with which 1st Lt. Lloyd was serving as a rifle platoon leader, was assigned the mission of expelling an estimated enemy force of 200 men from a heavily fortified position near Pompey, France,” Huckabee wrote.

After encountering heavy machine gun fire from enemy forces, Huckabee explained that “Lloyd leaped to his feet and led his men on a run into the raking fire, shouting encouragement to them.”

Lloyd single-handedly “jumped into the first enemy machinegun position, knocked out the gunner with his fist, dropped a grenade, and jumped out before it exploded,” Huckabee wrote, noting that his heroism resulted in the destruction of enemy weapons and the death of numerous enemy fighters.

Though he survived the incident, he died just two months later at the hand of a sniper–even as he was awaiting receipt of his Medal of Honor.

A second profile focused on a more recent recipient, U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class and member of SEAL Team 3 Michael A. Monsoor. During a particularly violent clash with enemy insurgents in Iraq, Monsoor threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of two fellow teammates.

Huckabee later spotlighted Korean War recipient U.S. Army Capt. Reginald B. Desiderio, who continued to lead his troops even after sustaining serious injury.

“In the subsequent fighting,” Huckabee wrote, “when the enemy succeeded in penetrating the position, he personally charged them with carbine, rifle, and grenades, inflicting many casualties until he himself was mortally wounded.”

Share this article on Facebook if you support our troops.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Black Senator Advocates Shooting Cops, Compares Law Enforcement To Islamic Terrorists

Facebook/Ernie Chambers

According to a state senator in Nebraska, the only difference between American police and ISIS terrorists is his belief that cops are more dangerous. During a recent hearing, Ernie Chambers shared his fiercely anti-police rhetoric, going so far as to say cops deserve to be shot without cause.

In a reference to ISIS, Chambers dismissed the terror group’s violence in favor of continuing his screed against law enforcement.

“My ISIS is the police,” he asserted, claiming the public servants “are licensed to kill us – children, old people.”

For those interested in battling terrorism, he suggested limiting their investigation to domestic sources.

“I wouldn’t go to Syria,” he said. “I wouldn’t go to Iraq. I wouldn’t go to Afghanistan. I wouldn’t go to Yemen. I wouldn’t go to Tunisia. I wouldn’t go to Lebanon. I wouldn’t go to Jordan. I would do it right here. Nobody from ISIS ever terrorized us as a people as the police do us daily.”



The abstract denunciation of police forces across the nation took on a far more menacing tone when Chambers speculated about what he would do with a gun.

“If I was going to carry a weapon,” he said, “it wouldn’t be against you. It wouldn’t be against these people who come here that I might have a dispute with. Mine would be for the police. And if I carried a gun, I’d want to shoot him first and then ask questions later, like they say the cop ought to do.”

Social media erupted with reaction to Chambers’ remarks, including a number of cops who took exception to his violent imagery.



Share this article on Facebook if you oppose Chambers’ comments.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

U.S. House’s Lone Jew Pens Devastating Letter To Obama Over Israel Position

Facebook/Lee Zeldin

In a recent editorial published on The Journal, New York Rep. Lee Zeldin took Barack Obama to task for his position regarding America’s closest Middle Eastern ally, Israel. Zeldin’s perspective is particularly relevant given his status as the only Jew currently serving in the U.S. Congress.

The military veteran began by pointing out that threats against Israel are also an inherent threat against the U.S.

“If a nation like Iran was to receive nuclear capability,” he wrote, “America’s security would be immediately weakened. That’s why we must do everything possible to stop Iran from ever having nuclear capabilities.”

It is that Iranian threat, Zeldin pointed out, that prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to America to share his concerns in an address before Congress.

During the speech, he explained, Netanyahu affirmed that “he does not oppose an agreement with Iran; he opposes a bad agreement.”

Zeldin echoed Netanyahu’s remarks, writing that a “bad deal with Iran is worse than no deal at all” and lambasting the idea that America would be best served by “making a slew of permanent concessions on our side in return for temporary concessions on the part of Iran.”

It is incumbent upon legislators, he wrote, to “work together to strengthen our relationship with Israel and protect both of our nations against those who want to harm us.”

In his concluding sentence, Zeldin addressed the Obama administration’s reluctance to join in that effort.

“It is my hope,” he stated, “that the Obama administration will start standing with our allies in Israel and stop protecting our enemies.”

Share this article on Facebook if you support Israel.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

New Yorker Under Fire For Describing Ted Cruz With Racist Term

Flickr/Gage Skidmore

Soon after he became the first 2016 presidential hopeful to formally announce his candidacy, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz became the subject of numerous media reports. One such article, penned by the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, described the Tea Party favorite as he believes “many Americans” see him.

Cruz “is the uppity loudmouth who, in the fall of 2013, less than a year into his first term as a senator, helped bring the federal government to a halt.”

Of course, many Americans believe the term ‘uppity’ has racial connotations and using it against the Hispanic Cruz is tantamount to a slur.

After radio host Rush Limbaugh referred to the “uppity-ness” of Michelle Obama following her chilly reception at a NASCAR event, The Wire published an article titled: “Yep, ‘Uppity’ Is Racist.”

The entire piece served as an effort to support the headline’s claim while disparaging Limbaugh and those who supported him. Despite the fact that the author’s most reliable source appeared to be an entry on the website Urban Dictionary that claims the word ‘uppity’ is “often followed by the n-word,” a certain segment of the population obviously believes the term is steeped in racial discrimination.

When the word was used against Cruz, many of the same claims levied against Limbaugh were rehashed to target Cassidy.



As a result, the New Yorker removed the offending word and included an apology by the author that the Washington Post described as a “sorry-if-anyone-took-offense formulation.”

Cassidy explained that he relied on a dictionary definition of the word, admitting it “also has some disturbing historical connotations that I overlooked, and in applying it to a Latino politician, I goofed.”

The closing line, criticized by the Post, included a caveat.

“If I gave any offense, however inadvertently, I am sorry,” he wrote.

Do you believe Cassidy’s use of the term ‘uppity’ was inappropriate? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Conservative Leader Lays Out Similarities Between Cruz And Reagan

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

Richard A. Viguerie, renowned conservative commentator and chairman of Conservative HQ, recently penned a statement in which he declared Ted Cruz the first serious GOP presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan to force the rest of the field to shift rightward.

“They will all have to move right to respond to Cruz, or be left behind by a grassroots conservative electorate fed-up [sic] with Republican candidates who are merely principle-free messengers for an out of touch Washington elite,” Viguerie wrote Monday, the same day that Cruz’s announcement made him the first official 2016 White House hopeful.

He went on to declare that Cruz might not be the only post-Reagan candidate to count “the conservative movement” as his base, though he is the only one “able to expand beyond their starting base of support into the top-tier of candidates.”

Each element of the Reagan coalition – “national defense conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives” – are aligning themselves with Cruz, he continued, as is a newer element, the Tea Party movement.

Other potential candidates, specifically Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Rand Paul, share common characteristics popular within the coalition, Viguerie said, “but no one unites it the way Ted Cruz does.”

Cruz also has an “almost spiritual bond with America’s country class,” he wrote, noting the Texas senator’s message resonates with those voters disillusioned by the executive overreaches within the Obama administration.

A final feather in Cruz’s cap, Viguerie stated, is the constitutional lawyer’s “zest for the battle of ideas between conservatives and progressives in both political parties and his intellectual gifts for fighting it.”

Do you believe Ted Cruz is a viable conservative choice in 2016? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom