Students Overhear Some Chilling Words, Things Could Have Been Deadly If They Didn’t Act

Four high school students have been arrested after fellow students overheard them plotting to carry out a massacre at the school.

The four Summerville Union High School boys of Sonora, Calif. had detailed plans that “included names of would-be victims, locations, methods in which the plan was to be carried out,” Tuolumne County Sheriff Jim Mele said Saturday. The targets included students and teachers.

After the boys were caught, student Zach Marquez came forward at a school assembly to applaud the students who made the report.

“Thank you to whoever that individual was that came out and spoke and had the courage to stand up and see what was wrong because basically you saved our lives,” he said.

After school authorities heard about the plot, they called in the Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Department. Three students were arrested Wednesday. A fourth was taken into custody Friday. Sheriff Mele said there were no other partners in the plot. Mele did not release the names of the suspects.

“They were going to come on campus and shoot and kill as many people as possible at the campus,” Mele said. “It is particularly unsettling when our most precious assets —which are our students, their teachers — are targets for violence.”

“I believe, with all my heart, the reason we were able to stop this was because we have a level of trust within our community,” Mele said. “When you have a level of trust with the law enforcement, your education – we meet monthly, we meet constantly – you can do this.”

According to the sheriff’s office, the students had not yet obtained any weapons.

“(They were) pretty dog-gone close. (Close) enough to keep me up last night, to keep my detectives and lieutenants up last night. There was an event that would be coming up that they specifically talked about,” Mele said. “To talk about specifically what, I don’t want to, but enough to move forward…that we took four children away from their homes in order to protect other children.”

No motive for the planed attack has been released. On Monday, sheriff’s investigators were interviewing the students and adults targets in the plot, to help understand why certain individuals were selected.

“It is clear from past history such as Columbine and Sandy Hook, as well as other recent events in Oregon, that children are willing and capable of planning and carrying out acts of violence against fellow students and teachers on school grounds,” said Tuolumne County Assistant District Attorney Eric Hovatter. “While it is easy to say that would never happen in Tuolumne County, the public and local law enforcement must remain vigilant as they did here. That the suspects are young does not minimize the gravity of the conduct nor the potential for great harm to many people.”

h/t: Liftbump

WATCH: Reporter Asks Hillary 1 Question About Her Past, How She Handles It Says It All

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had a lot to say Monday on the subject of gun control.

When a reporter confronted her about the contradictions between her position in 2008 and and the series of blanket proposals she released Monday that would put new limits on gun ownership, suddenly she had very little to say.

Video of the exchange shows her dodging the question by totally ignoring the reporter and posing for photos with supporters.

Clinton talked about gun control during a 2008 debate while still seeking the Democratic presidential nomination against Barack Obama.

“What I favor is what works in New York,” Clinton said then, as reported by BuzzFeed. “You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana.”

She added, “So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.”

After BuzzFeed’s report was widely circulated, a Clinton spokesman told BuzzFeed that Clinton’s concern at the time had been that any federal law not prevent communities from enacting stiffer gun bans.

In that 2008 debate, Clinton further elaborated upon her position.

“I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe,” Clinton said then.

She said “a total ban” “might be found by the court not to be” constitutional, but added, “I don’t know the facts.”

“I don’t think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them,” she added.

h/t: TheBlaze

The Facts About Pope’s Meeting With Kim Davis

Big news this week as “progressives” worldwide learned, to their utter shock and mournful consternation, that the pope is Catholic. Rumors are they will next examine wild bears, the woods and certain mysteries therein.

On Wednesday, the Vatican confirmed what a handful of us knew days before. Pope Francis secretly (and privately) met with Kim Davis at Washington’s Vatican Embassy to personally offer his broad support for her bold stand against that insidious and “intrinsically disordered” counterfeit called “gay marriage.”

Does Pope Francis really support Kim Davis?

While specifics of Davis’ legal case were not discussed during the private meeting, days later Pope Francis publicly affirmed Kim’s “human right” as a “conscientious objector” to refuse to sign her name to “gay marriage” licenses – even in her official capacity as an elected official. This human right, incidentally, is an unalienable right protected by the First Amendment. “Stay strong,” the pope told Kim after the two embraced during the tearful meeting. He thanked her for her courage and asked her to pray for him. She likewise asked him to pray for her. These facts are not in dispute.

On Friday, the Vatican issued another statement to clarify what was, or, better still, was not, discussed during the meeting: “The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” said Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi.

As Austin Ruse of notes, “The Vatican spokesman chose his words carefully. By stating that the meeting should not be considered support for her position ‘in all of its particular and complex aspects,’ Lombardi is allowing the notion that the meeting can be understood as general support for Davis’ cause, but not necessarily papal support for every detailed aspect of the legal case.”

Indeed, neither Kim Davis nor anyone on her legal team ever suggested that the pope supports, or is even aware of, “her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.” Still, based upon his own words and the official position of the Catholic Church, we can know, for sure, of at least three “positions” on which the pope does support Kim Davis. They are: 1) Homosexual behavior is sin; 2) Marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman; and 3) No “human person,” whether a government official or not, should be forced to violate his or her conscience by affirming sin-based “gay marriage.”

Who asked for the meeting?

There has likewise been much speculation and liberal wishful thinking as to how this meeting came about, with some pundits desperately clinging to hopes that the pontiff was “actually swindled into meeting Kim Davis.”

Let’s end the speculation.

Vatican officials reached out, unsolicited, to Davis through her attorney, Mat Staver, and arranged the meeting out of the blue before Pope Francis even arrived in the U.S. for his whirlwind tour. The Davis team was led to believe that the request came from the pope himself. Not only did Pope Francis know who Kim Davis was when he told reporters on the plane ride home that conscientious objectors have a “human right” to decline participation in sodomy-based “marriage,” he had personally met Kim privately, and embraced her both physically and ideologically before he did so.

The meeting was temporarily kept “secret” during the pope’s visit so as to avoid the predictable media circus that would, and later did, ensue. Both Davis’ representatives and the Vatican agreed that news of the meeting would be released upon the pope’s departure. He wasn’t “embarrassed” by the meeting, as some have suggested, but, rather, held it discreetly for logistical reasons alone.

What does the pope believe about homosexuality and “gay marriage”?

While protestant Christians obviously don’t agree with Pope Francis and the Catholic Church on everything, all faithful Christians, both protestant and Catholic alike, are nonetheless indebted to him for validating Kim’s courageous obedience to God. By extension, the pope has likewise validated every other Christian who refuses to be forced to participate in, or otherwise affirm, this sinful pagan rite. “Gay marriage” is an affront to Christ, the Church and God’s natural order. No faithful believer who wishes to remain in obedience to God can have anything to do with it.

But why? Why is “gay marriage” an affront to God? Why must Christians oppose it?

While the reasons are manifold, it seems most wish to avoid the primary issue surrounding any discussion on “same-sex marriage.” That is, the fundamental wrongness of homosexual behavior itself. If homosexual behavior is not wrong, as it goes, then what justification is there for refusing to redefine marriage around it?

But it is wrong. It’s always, and in every way, wrong.

So says the pope.

So says the Bible.

And, most importantly, so says the very Creator of marriage itself.

On the question of homosexual sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a clear and biblically sound summation: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

And so Kim Davis refuses to approve them.

Despite progressives’ best efforts, there’s simply no way to get around words like, “intrinsically disordered” and “grave depravity.”

As for those who struggle with same-sex attraction and define their identity as “gay” or “lesbian” based upon these aberrant temptations and proclivities, the Catechism adds, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

“They” must be accepted. Their disordered and sinful behavior must not.

On progressives’ push for “gay marriage,” Pope Francis has said, “The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.”

“Gay marriage” is inherently sterile – a dead end.

“Children have a right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity,” the pope has added, further calling all attempts to impose “gay marriage” on society “ideological colonization which are out to destroy the family.”

“The complementarity of man and woman … is the root of marriage and family,” he observes.

Amen, pontiff sir. Amen.

On Sept. 24, after Kim Davis and Pope Francis met privately, I had the distinct privilege of joining Kim and her husband, Joe, for dinner. In addition to sharing the pope’s views on sexual morality, marriage and freedom of conscience, I saw firsthand that they likewise share the pope’s profound love and compassion for those afflicted by these “trials.”

Kim Davis is an accidental hero.

Pope Francis is to be commended for honoring her as such.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

WH Just Revealed Obama Is Planning An Executive Order That Will OUTRAGE Many Americans

President Barack Obama plans to approve several executive orders to initiate gun control measures that Congress is unlikely to pass.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in an Oct. 5 press conference that the president’s actions were in response to the recent shooting in Oregon, where a gunman killed nine people attending a writing class. Witnesses said he killed those proclaiming a Christian faith and wounded others, stating they were of another faith, no faith, or not answering the question.

“It’s a high priority and will continue to be until we start to see more progress on this issue in this town,” Earnest said.

The exact orders are not yet drawn, and Earnest would not talk about any specific details of the measures during the press conference. He only would say the process was “ongoing.”

“I can tell you that they’re not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also others who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” Earnest said.

The president has not fared well in past attempts to get gun control legislation through Congress. Obama wanted a ban on assault weapons and wider background checks, but that failed in 2013. A weakened bill on background checks, debated in Congress after the Newtown, Conn., massacre of schoolchildren, died in a Senate filibuster.

After that failed attempt, the president signed 23 executive orders to reduce firearm violence. He didn’t introduce any gun control legislation when Democrats had control of both chambers after Obama became president in 2009.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton presented her gun control proposals on Oct. 5. Gun rights supporters fear her proposal would circumvent Congress because it allows for executive orders to mandate background checks on all gun purchases, both from licensed dealers and private parties. Currently, background checks are not mandated for private gun sales–and that includes sales at gun shows. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee has been making the media rounds on the subject, stating that gun control would have done nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the Oregon shooter.

A chart of 10 countries shows there were 38 rampage shooting incidents in the United States between 2009 and 2013. Statistically, the U.S. was much lower in incidents and deaths than other countries with more restrictive gun laws when each country’s population numbers were included.

The Fight To Replace Boehner Just Got A Whole Lot More Interesting…

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has thrown his hat in the ring to become the next Speaker of the House, replacing John Boehner.

Chaffetz, who is currently chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, believes he could be someone to bridge the conservative-establishment Republican divide.

The representative does not currently believe that presumed frontrunner Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has enough votes to secure the nomination in Thursday’s scheduled vote. To win the nomination, a candidate must garner the support of 218 of the 246 Republican House members.

The House Freedom Caucus, made up of approximately 30 GOP members, is not expected to fully support McCarthy, leaving a potential opening for Chaffetz to become the consensus candidate.

“There are very few people who can win the support of our hardcore conservatives and yet be palatable to our more moderate members,” Chaffetz told Politico. “The question is who can help unite the party and bridge the divide and I hope they see me as the person that will give everyone a fair shake.”

McCarthy’s candidacy suffered a potential blow last week, when he implied that one of the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s primary purposes was to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

Chaffetz said he felt compelled to run for Speaker because those he felt to be the best candidates to replace Boehner–Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.–are not running.

The Utah representative said his leadership style would be more bottom up than the top down methods employed by Boehner. “Chaffetz also said he would allow lawmakers to vote against the party without fear of punishment,” Politico reports. 

As reported by Western Journalism, Chaffetz removed Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., from his sub-committee chairmanship after he did not toe the Boehner line regarding a Trade Promotion Authority procedural vote in the spring. However, after Meadows received an outpouring of support, Chaffetz reinstated him a few days later, upsetting the Boehner loyalists, according to Politico.

“It was an important reminder and lesson that using retribution or a heavy hand is not the way we’re going to build our strength,” said Chaffetz. 

Both political parties will nominate their choice for Speaker of the House, with a vote to fill the vacancy scheduled for Oct. 29.

h/t: Fox News