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

Expert Refutes FBI Data On ‘Active Shooter Incidents’


A study conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documenting “active shooter incidents” is “politically biased,” says an expert in the field of firearms and crime.

Last fall, the FBI released a document entitled “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013.” The study argues there have been 160 active shooter incidents recorded in that time.






These are some of the key facts from the report:

  • An average of 11.4 incidents occurred annually.
  • An average of 6.4 incidents occurred in the first 7 years studied, and an average of 16.4 occurred in the last 7 years.
  • 70 percent of the incidents occurred in either a commerce/business or educational environment
  • Shootings occurred in 40 of 50 states and the District of Columbia
  • 60 percent of the incidents ended before police arrived.

But John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, disagreed with the FBI’s data. “The FBI put out a clearly incorrect set of numbers on public shootings shortly before the November election last year,” Lott told Fox News.

I have been reading FBI reports for 30 years and I have never seen anything like this.It is one thing for the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the National Institute of Justice to put out politically biased studies, but there has always been a Chinese wall separating the FBI raw data collection from political pressures.

Lott released a paper of his own the following month countering the FBI’s findings entitled “The FBI’s Misrepresentation of the Change in Mass Public Shootings.” In the abstract, Lott challenges the annual growth rate of mass shootings, which the report says is 16 percent.

“When a longer period of time is examined (1977 through the first half of 2014),” he writes, “deaths from Mass Public Shootings show only a slight, statistically insignificant, increase – an annual increase of less than one percent.”

The FBI’s misleadingly includes cases that aren’t mass shootings – cases where no one or only one person was killed in a public place. While the FBI assures people that it ‘captured the vast majority of incidents falling within the search criteria,’ their report missed 20 shootings where at least two people were killed in a public place.

“Most of these missing cases took place early on, biasing their results towards showing an increase,” Lott added.

h/t: Fox News

Share this if you are skeptical about law enforcement and all of the federal government.

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

Controversy Budding Over White House Decision To Cut Chief Florist

Twitter/Radio Gamma

Renowned White House Chief Florist Laura Dowling left her position on the eve of Valentine’s Day last month, and the reason for her departure is not clear. The Washington Post reports that there is still no official statement concerning what precipitated her unexpected exodus, but sources say she was escorted from the building on February 13.

When the Post inquired with the first lady’s office, it received a terse reply: “Laura left her position earlier this year.” A short time later, the East Wing sent a slightly longer statement:

As Chief Florist, Laura Dowling and her team treated guests of the White House to their beautiful floral arrangements. Ms. Dowling’s creations were always lively and colorful, reflecting not only the season but the unique and historic rooms which they graced. No two arrangements were ever the same and each one left guests with a lasting impression of the elegance and history of the People’s House. We are grateful for her contribution over the years and wish her well.

Ms. Dowling released a statement through her attorney, published earlier this week:

After almost 6 years as Chief Floral Designer at the White House, I have resigned in order to pursue exciting new opportunities and explore my passion for floral artistry and design. Over the next few weeks and months, I’ll be launching a new platform for my work as an author, speaker, instructor and design consultant that builds on the creative ideas and partnerships I’ve formed during my tenure there. It’s been such an honor to work at the White House and I will always be grateful for this incredible opportunity.

Dowling, a French-trained designer, had won her position as top florist in 2009 in a reality TV-style competition and had served in the White House since that time. She succeeded Nancy Clarke, who had been the chief florist for three decades.

The Post noted the contrast between Dowling’s no-fanfare/secret departure with that of other White House staff, like the “crust master” (the president’s words) pastry chef, Bill Yosses, and the family’s personal chef, Sam Kass, whom the president said ”left an indelible mark on the White House.” Mrs. Obama also wished Kass well in his future endeavors in the official White House statement.

The lack of comment by either of the Obamas regarding Ms. Dowling’s departure has caused rampant speculation as to the reason, with many concluding the first lady made the call.

The Post published a follow-up story Tuesday indicating that the first lady and Dowling clashed over matters of taste, with Mrs. Obama no longer liking the chief florist’s “fussy style.”

BizPac Review noted the similarity of the White House statement concerning Dowling’s departure with the language corporations use when they fire someone and do not want the public to know it. Couple that with Ms. Dowling sending her statement through a K Street attorney and a budding, true life, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue drama is in the offing.

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

What’s Behind The ‘Israel Spying On The US’ Story?

Speaker John Boehner (Flickr)

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that Israel has spied on the United States to get information about the ongoing negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The paper cited unnamed officials in the Obama administration who said that the White House was upset that Israel used the obtained information to lobby Congress to try to sink the emerging deal with Iran.

“It’s one thing for the U.S. and Israel to spy on each other. It is another thing for Israel to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy,” said a senior U.S. official, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Israeli government denied the story. A spokesman for the Prime Minister’s office said: “These allegations are utterly false. The State of Israel does not conduct espionage against the United States or Israel’s other allies. The false allegations are clearly intended to undermine the strong ties between the United States and Israel and the security and intelligence relationship we share.”

Commentators in Israel suspect the Obama administration leaked the story to the Wall Street Journal in order to increase the pressure on Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. They pointed to the timing of the publication of the story a week after Netanyahu booked a resounding victory in the Israeli election and a couple of days after Obama escalated the conflict with Netanyahu over his pre-election comment about the impossibility of establishing a Palestinian state anytime soon.

Middle-East expert Tzvi Yechezkieli commented on the affair during an interview with TV channel Arutz 10. He said that it is fair to assume Israel did spy on the nuclear talks with Iran, but that everybody knows that the Mossad obtains its information via sources in Iran. So Israel has been spying on Iran, he said.

Others pointed to the fact that the administration didn’t say a word when Iranian FM Zarif leaked details about Obama’s Security Council gambit.

The White House didn’t protest either when Zarif revealed that the Obama administration had repeatedly given ground on the centrifuge count and has now agreed to allow Iran to operate 6000 centrifuges.

The Israeli pundits also said that the Wall Street Journal story is replete with references to how US spying on Israel is how the Obama administration learned about it. The administration discovered the Israeli operation when U.S. intelligence services spying on Israel intercepted communication among Israeli officials, WSJ reported.

This was not the first time U.S. intelligence services were caught spying on Israel. In 2013, Time Magazine revealed that the United States and Great Britain had been monitoring e-mail from former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. This spying scandal also ignited a spat between the strategically allied countries.

The leaking of stories about Israel spying on the United States has been a tool to pressure Israel for the last 40 years whenever relations were bad between the governments of the two countries.  But now, the Obama administration accuses Israel of delivering classified information to U.S. lawmakers in order to influence the  political dispute on Iran between the President and Congress.

The same Israeli commentators say that this shows that the administration admits that the reason the U.S. was classifying details of the negotiations was to keep Congress out of the loop. Furthermore, they say, if Israel needed to spy on the U.S. to get information about a deal that is of enormous importance for the future of the country and the Middle East as a whole, what does that say about the special relationship between the countries and Israel’s status as a true and trustworthy ally?

Analyst Ron Yishai wrote on the Ynet news site that the reports of alleged Israeli espionage are part of a campaign waged by the United States, with a clear political purpose.

Yishai: “This is not just a political vendetta against Benjamin Netanyahu, but a calculated political move by the Obama administration that was planned long before the Israeli elections, in case Netanyahu won.

Netanyahu is facing a media blitz against him being managed by the White House.

Behind this media campaign, the administration is hiding deep concerns regarding two issues: the danger that Israel will torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran and the fear that a narrow right-wing government in Israel will lead to an even larger and more violent conflict with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza.

The Americans want to lower the flames of the steadily developing conflict between Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. To achieve this, the US administration wants to influence the composition of the next Israeli government.

In Washington they are saying that if possible, they will prevent the establishment of a narrow right-wing government, and if such a government is formed, ensure that the key ministerial posts are given to relative “moderates”.

In addition, the Obama administration is trying to influence the political platform of the next Israeli government,” Yishai wrote

He continued:”The accusations of spying made against Israel are primarily designed to limit the ability of Republican lawmakers in Congress to act against the agreement with Iran. Any member of Congress, Republican or Democratic, who uses the information received from Israel to vote against the agreement with Iran, is actually guilty of a form of treason as he or she made use of material obtained through alleged espionage against the United States.

In the battle for hearts and minds, Obama is waging war on Netanyahu not only out of revenge, but also as a way of setting a strategic policy, before the Israeli government is formed and before it is too late,” he concluded.

Yishai is probably right; the WSJ journalist who wrote the story about the spy scandal told Israeli News Show Mabat that he started to work on the story after the U.S. administration threatened Netanyahu not to divulge any secrets during his speech to Congress.

Netanyahu heeded that warning and told Congress all details of the emerging deal he discussed during the address could be googled. But Obama’s threat showed that the administration knew that Israel obtained secret details of the emerging deal.

The question now is what Obama’s administration will achieve.

Israeli analysts think that the administration might be overplaying its hand, inviting a backlash of sympathy for Netanyahu. Obama’s words and actions are regarded as patronizing and as disrespectful not only to Netanyahu, but to the Israeli public as well.

Obama seems to forget that Netanyahu just won an impressive victory in the Israeli election and that the President’s standing in Israel has sunk to an all time low. He should have learned something about Israeli politics and the spirit of the Israeli people after his interference in the Israeli election backfired.

His interference in the composition of the new Israeli government will only lead to more resistance in Israel against his politics on Iran and on the conflict with the Palestinians.

Bret Stephens, who was once the editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, probably got it right in his analysis about Obama’s Middle-East policies and Israel in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

Stephens concluded his article as follows: “The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue: Let’s hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.”

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