Unbelievable: Obama Just Turned His Most Dangerous Enemies Into Heroes

There is no more important item on the Obama Regime to-do list than to convince Americans that Islamic terrorists are not the nation’s most dangerous and implacable foes. “We…must concern ourselves with a different type of threat,” said A.G. Eric Holder as he announced the return of the Clinton era Domestic Terror Executive Committee. And that threat will not come from Muslim jihadists. Rather, Holder warned that Americans must be prepared for “…the continued danger we face from individuals within our own borders.”

The Committee to be reconstituted by the Obama Regime was put in business by the Clinton Department of Justice in 1995, shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. Its stated purpose was investigation and interdiction of the nefarious activities of right wing radicals. The committee would decide how best to protect the American public from non-conforming, potential domestic terrorists like those gunned down by the ATF at Ruby Ridge or immolated by the FBI in Waco.

But neither the Clinton nor the Obama Administration was interested in looking after the American people. And both failed miserably in their attempts to demonize the nation’s “radical right.” In fact, the public considered Clinton’s ATF and FBI the real domestic terrorists, especially after the wantonly violent carnage caused by Bureau minions at Waco.

Enter Barack Obama, who has plotted against gun owners—in the president’s mind, the most dangerous and determined of right wing extremists—for the past 5 years. Hundreds died as a result of his Fast and Furious scheme to toughen gun control legislation.

And in the end, not only did the 2 administrations fail to demonstrate the dangers posed by the “far right”; they created even greater mistrust of a government that was supposed to save the day by disarming those dedicated, homegrown terrorists.

Add the fact of these well-publicized, strong-arm disasters to the unequaled corruption and arrogance of Barack Obama, and it is not difficult to understand the American people taking up arms against the federal government’s BLM mercenaries at the Bundy ranch. Incredibly, Barack Obama actually succeeded in turning his most dreaded enemies into national heroes.

And more importantly, Obama wound up being humiliated by a disorganized bunch of cowboys wearing six-guns. The weakness of this American president, already so well understood by foreign leaders, was placed on full display before the American public.

Presidents who own the media can overcome a great many things. But humiliation, especially at the hands of American patriots who Barack Obama has spent most of his years working to destroy, may not be one of them.

Photo credit: Ben Templesmith (Flickr)

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What Will The GOP Leadership Learn From Cantor’s Shellacking?

Concerned that DC Republicans might begin listening to voters rather than Karl Rove, an always sympathetic White House told stunned GOP leaders that “Cantor’s problem wasn’t his position on immigration reform; it was his lack of a position.” That is, Cantor wasn’t too liberal; and he had not offended the conservative, Republican base with his promise of passing amnesty–or his contemptuous decision to headline an April conference hosted by George Soros and organized labor. In fact, if anything, the now defunct Virginia congressman had been TOO conservative! After all, hadn’t Cantor’s campaign sent out direct-mail pieces just before last night’s primary, promising that he was “stopping the Obama-Reid plan to give illegal aliens amnesty?”

Cantor lost to David Brat, an economics professor and Tea Party favorite who spent the primary season accusing Cantor of being a top “cheerleader for amnesty.” “I ran on the Republican principles,” said Brat to the AP. Of course, the new Republican nominee might want to be careful about making claims that he will be a good Republican and tell voters that he will be a dedicated conservative instead. After all, that is, in part, what helped get him the nomination; that and the fact that Eric Cantor believed it was more important to satisfy the New York Times than the voters in his conservative district.

And trust the AP to claim that Cantor’s daily promises to help John Boehner pass amnesty as hoards of illegal alien children stream across the border had nothing whatever to do with this 10 point trouncing by an unknown who had been outspent $993,000 to $76,000 during the last 7 weeks of the campaign. “Jay S. Poole, a Cantor volunteer, said Brat tapped into widespread frustration among voters about the gridlock in Washington and issues such as immigration.” Frustration about gridlock? That lame excuse has been used by political losers for decades. It apparently never occurs to DC politicos that voters often prefer gridlock! And who, exactly, could be RESPONSIBLE for that frustration about immigration?

The question now is which way the Republican leadership will jump after the Cantor defeat. Does John Boehner succeed in convincing Republicans that Eric Cantor’s loss was just one of those things, that amnesty must be passed because it is the “right thing to do”?

The tone deaf arrogance that prompted the GOP to assault the conservative party base has finally come back to bite them. I’m not so sure they will learn from it.

Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service (Flickr)

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

More Firearm Stories That Will Never Make The National News

Each year, there are countless defensive firearm uses in the U.S.; and few if ANY will be reported by the “mainstream” media. For when an average citizen uses a gun to defend life, liberty, or property, the firearm becomes indispensable–and its owner, often a hero. And that is not a story that fits the media meme that guns are either useless or dangerous when not in the hands of law enforcement.

But a disapproving media aside, things like these DO happen:

1.) A week ago, a Fort Wayne, Indiana homeowner answered a knock at the front door, only to have five masked criminals (at least 2 of them armed) burst into the house. One ran upstairs, right into the barrel of a waiting pistol held by Chris Torres. Carrying a crowbar, the thug—Nathan Simmerson—managed to barricade himself in a bathroom!

In the meantime, just as Simmerson’s downstairs associates had forced 3 family members to the floor, one of them yelled to Torres, “Get the AR 15!” Upon hearing this, the 4 thugs bolted through the door and were gone, leaving their comrade in the bathroom to fend for himself. He was soon tackled trying to escape and is in police custody.

So not only are “assault weapons” scary to look at; now it seems they’re even scary to HEAR about! Does anyone believe that CNN will congratulate the nation’s AR makers on their weapons’ new-found “versatility?”

How about for having potentially saved 4 lives?

2.) In California, the eldest of four siblings fought off multiple attackers who attempted to break into his home. Though shot a number of times himself, the 22 year old managed to kill one of the criminals and wound another as the remaining assailants sped away. Also home at the time were the victim’s sister and younger brothers who were not injured. The young hero came through surgery and is on the mend.

3.) Two weeks ago, the CEO of Jack in the Box restaurants made the brilliant decision to turn his fast food chain into a nationwide “Gun Free Zone.”

Intimidated by various claims from the left wing group “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America,” CEO Leonard Comma began enforcing the long ignored “no firearms” policy of Jack in the Box by posting signs that warn employees and customers to “leave their guns at home” when coming to Jack’s.

Since implementation of the new policy—complete with the “No Firearms” sign at each franchise location—Jack in the Box restaurants have been held up 3 times: twice in Houston and once in Nashville. Customers were shot in Houston and Tennessee. A second Houston holdup featured 4 masked individuals who leisurely robbed the restaurant and its customers.

But give Jack in the Box credit for at least getting one thing right. Offering the company’s reasons for implementation of the new, anti-gun policy, Brian Luscomb, vice president of corporate communications stated: “The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences.”

Pages: 1 2

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Left Teaching Elementary School Students About The Evils Of “White Privilege”

“Whites need to acknowledge and work through the negative historical implications of ‘Whiteness’ and create for [themselves] a transformed identity as White people committed to equity and social change…”

For years, blacks and liberals have eagerly played the race card to intimidate politically or socially dangerous (that is, truth-telling) whites into silence. But as overuse is causing many whites to defy the race card rather than fear it, the left has revived their decades old claims of White Privilege.

White Privilege has been defined as an unearned, “…invisible, weightless knapsack of special provisions…” that turns whites into oppressors as a result of the countless, unfair advantages given them over minorities. Peggy McIntosh, the tolerant moonbat responsible for this definition, has lamented that her schooling “…gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture.”

Well, far left “educators” have apparently decided to make up for this oversight. The 2014 White Privilege Conference in Madison, Wisconsin featured speakers and guests who intend to indoctrinate students as to the wickedness of whiteness and racism at its worst right down to the elementary school level.

• A former high school English teacher claims “teaching is a purely political act and …neutral people should get the F… out of teaching.”
• A professor of sociology told the audience that white people did not exist before 1681!
• Speaking of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, a UC Berkeley law professor stated that race “is driving almost everything that is happening in the country.” He then claimed that “they took money away from protecting the levees because the levees were protecting black people.”
• An adjunct professor at a small college decided that capitalism is the cause of racism and was “…invented in Colonial America by white capitalists as a tool to divide labor and keep the working class in their place.”
• And in the “Examining White Privilege…in the Elementary Classroom” workshop, two “educators” told attendees how teachers can “’…insert social justice, anti-racist information’ into their lessons that ‘even little kids’ can understand.”

What could be more comforting than the knowledge that people like these will be teaching our kids that white people are born with an unfair advantage that makes them perpetual oppressors of minorities!

What could possibly go wrong?

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Hillary Clinton Just Declared War On Gun Owners

On May 7th, an apoplectic CNN attempted to provide cover for Hillary Clinton after her unprovoked assault on 100 million American gun owners. Speaking before the National Council for Behavioral Health, Hillary stated that the nation’s “gun culture” had gotten “way out of balance.” “We’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime” added Clinton. “I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

“She’s talking in the context of mental health,” claimed CNN talking head John King in the hope of bailing his fellow liberal out of the ofttimes politically fatal quagmire of anti-gun zealotry. After all, who could favor arming the mentally unstable?

But Hillary’s nonsensical claims had nothing to do with the acquisition of firearms by the mentally ill. “At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated,” lamented Clinton. Her concerns obviously revolve around the increasing number of “fully licensed” and “fully validated” gun owners. And that’s a group that certainly doesn’t include the mentally ill!

Not satisfied that she had done enough damage to her chances in 2016, Clinton then claimed that the proliferation of guns “[is] what happens in the countries I’ve visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control…” This is “…something that we cannot just let go without paying attention,” said Hillary, not only insulting America’s law-abiding gun owners but obviously threatening them with a new round of anti-gun legislation from the federal government.

Yet even more mind-boggling than her sudden decision to declare war on America’s gun owners was Hillary’s laughable claim that she could say all she had and “…still support the right of people to own guns.” Now that’s funny stuff!

As usual, Hillary made statements that cannot be supported by anything even resembling a fact. No, Mrs. Clinton, “anybody” cannot “have a gun anywhere, anytime.” The left made certain of that with the manufacture of killing fields they call “gun free” zones. Also, little in the U.S. is more subject to the “rule of law” than the right to keep and bear arms.

As for “self-control,” Concealed Carry license holders are 3 times less likely to commit a domestic murder with a firearm than are police officers!

But the real question here is why? Why would Hillary believe it a good idea to take up publicly declared residence on the losing side of one of the most polarizing subjects in politics? Trailing Barack Obama in the polls in 2008, Hillary became a sudden convert to the belief that gun ownership was just swell. Speaking of her own experience shooting with her father, Hillary said of gun ownership at the time: “It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are.”

But that tale was no more truthful than her claim to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary–3 years BEFORE he climbed Mt. Everest.

Of course, little that Hillary Clinton has ever said has not been a lie. She is a cold, calculating, political thug who measures the value of things according to their effect on public opinion. So why would she begin an unnecessary war with gun owners? Why provide the eventual Republican opponent with golden opportunities for “Here’s what Hillary really thinks about gun owners” commercials?

It doesn’t make much sense to me.

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom