The White House Just Changed Their Profile Picture To THIS Following SCOTUS Ruling

In light of the historic Supreme Court decision affirming gay marriage, many institutions used social media Friday to take a victory lap.

Not surprisingly, President Obama, Vice President Biden, The White House, and the Democratic Party all took to various social media platforms to celebrate Friday’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, showing off the rainbow colors and offering statements of support:

06262015_The White House _Facebook

Several companies also showed their support on Twitter, including telecommunications giant AT&T and Starbucks:

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream renamed their Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough flavor to “I Dough, I Dough” at their walk-in shops.

Even sports teams got in on the action:

06262015_San Francisco Giants_Facebook

Facebook/San Francisco Giants

06252015_US Soccer_Facebook

Facebook/US Soccer

h/t: Young Cons

Are you disgusted by this flaunting, or are they entitled to do so? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

After The Attack On The Confederate Flag Is Over, This Piece Of American History Will Be Targeted

It is fast becoming open season on symbols, images, statues, monuments, plaques, and people important to, or representative of, the Confederate States of America. The politically correct crowd and the PC enforcers who amplify and intensify its demands are quickly gaining both prominence and power in their accelerating effort to cleanse the South of artifacts and emblems of the Confederacy.

Over the course of the last week or so — as calls for removal of the Confederate flag from public property in South Carolina have grown louder in the wake of the Charleston church massacre — Western Journalism has reported frequently on the controversy. After the White House reiterated President Obama’s belief that the flag belongs not on a public pole but “in a museum,” Rev. Franklin Graham shared his conviction that “it’s time for this flag to be set aside as a part of our history.”

Now, proponents of the PC purge of all things Confederate are widening their sights and expanding their range of targets. Not just in the South but elsewhere across the country, those who view any reminder of the Confederacy as a symbol of hate and a representation of a racist culture are on the march.

NPR reports that in Missouri, two Civil War memorials that honor those who died fighting for the Confederacy “have become flash points” in the discussion of whether it’s appropriate in today’s America to maintain those reminders of the losing side in the War Between the States.

The NPR report also points out there’s “a looming monument going up near the Texas-Louisiana border” that angers a local NAACP leader named Paul Jones.

“‘It’s glorifying, to me, white supremacy — and the institution of slavery,’ he says.”

An Associated Press article posted on Yahoo! News notes that, in a half-dozen states, vandals have set about defacing monuments dedicated to soldiers and leaders of the Confederacy.

“The graffiti reflects the racial tension that permeates post-Ferguson America, more than a week after a white man was accused of shooting and killing nine black congregants at a Charleston, South Carolina, church.”

Among the spray-painted slogans on those markers is the now-familiar phrase that you might say has become a battle cry of racial agitators, “Black Lives Matter.”

One leader of the Confederacy who is coming under fire — some might say the most important military commander for the South and possibly one of the greatest American generals of all time — is Robert E. Lee. David Brooks, the so-called “conservative” columnist for The New York Times — a man who makes frequent appearances on network talk shows — is asking whether Lee’s name should be removed from the many schools, buildings, streets, and public spaces where it is memorialized.

Lest you think that this is one man’s curious questioning, Brooks’ opinion in such matters is often the shot heard round the media world and a weapon turned on any conservative with a differing opinion. His writing can become a first cut into controversial issues that eventually bleed out as more and more empowered and emboldened critics take a stab at what Brooks’ has turned into an open wound.

While praising Robert E. Lee for his quality of character, the Times op-ed columnist condemns the famous general for his loyalty to the South.

In theory, he opposed slavery, once calling it “a moral and political evil in any country.” He opposed Southern secession, calling it “silly” and a rash revolutionary act.

…while Lee may have opposed slavery in theory he did nothing to eliminate or reduce it in practice. On the contrary, if he’d been successful in the central task of his life, he would have preserved and prolonged it.

The conclusion that David Brooks draws will, no doubt, serve as an opening volley in the assault by an angry army of others intent on climbing aboard the PC bandwagon that’s now on a fast roll toward its goal of shaming a large segment of America — shaming them into removing any sign or symbol of what Barack Obama continually claims is a nation still sullied by its racist past.

Writes Brooks: “My own view is that we should preserve most Confederate memorials out of respect for the common soldiers. We should keep Lee’s name on institutions that reflect postwar service, like Washington and Lee University, where he was president. But we should remove Lee’s name from most schools, roads and other institutions, where the name could be seen as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war.”

What do you think? Do you believe remembrances of Robert E. Lee should be relegated to a far lesser place in American history? Join the conversation by commenting below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

People’s House? Nope. Obama To Heckler: ‘MY’ House

Earlier this week, Barack Obama held an event honoring LGBT Pride Month at the White House. Rainbow flags, tolerance, and all that jazz. But not everyone in attendance was happy. Or tolerant.

As often happens at political events, a heckler’s voice rang out from the crowd during Obama’s speech. Our humorless president was less than amused, and instead lectured the heckler:

“Shame on you.”

(Oh, that’ll show ’em.)

“No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No.”

(And… now you sound like that parent who can’t control their child in the grocery store.)

“Listen you’re in my house … it’s not respectful.”

The heckler disagreed with the president, continued the dissent, and was escorted from the room. But President Obama had still more to say about the incident.

“As a general rule I am just fine with a few hecklers. But not when I’m up here in the house.”

You should check out the video. It’s pretty sad, really:

(For the record, the heckler turned out to be an illegal –err– undocumented, transgender immigrant. Pretty sure that makes the president a hateful, racist, anti-immigrant, bigoted transophobe. But I’m not 100% sure on that one. Please stand by while I consult my liberal friends.)

The really, REALLY big problem in this story though? Obama’s all, “This is MY house.” Excuse me, sir. You are wrong. It is not YOUR house.

The White House, in fact, is the PEOPLE’s house. (The White House website even describes it as such.) We’re letting you borrow it while you’re president. You don’t get to stay there forever. You don’t even get to have family reunions there. You’re merely passing through the people’s house.

Maybe it’s time Barack Obama stopped acting like an entitled king who issues edicts from the marble halls of his palace and started acting like the President of the United States… who will no longer be living in the White House in just over a year and a half.

Because, Mr. President, it’s not your house. It’s our house.

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

If Nuke Talks With Iran Fail, This ‘Mind-Boggling’ New Weapon In US Arsenal Is Ready To Punish

Even as the Obama administration enters the final phase of nuclear talks with Iran — hoping to have an agreement by month’s end — the U.S. military is not waiting around to see if those negotiations will succeed in halting Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continues to come out with a series of defiant statements that chip away at supposedly agreed upon conditions for a comprehensive nuclear deal. And Secretary of State John Kerry — who has been one of the biggest advocates for some sort of accord, the terms of which seem to keep changing with every passing day — has just warned the U.S. is willing to walk away from the negotiating table.

And, assuming that the parties can come to some sort of an agreement, there’s the rather important matter of compliance. Iran has proven over the years that it isn’t particularly trustworthy; it may, of course, agree to put an end to its nuclear weapons program and then continue developing the bomb in heavily fortified underground facilities.

So, in the event the U.S. military needs to take action to stop Tehran’s nuke ambitions, one of the world’s largest non-nuclear bombs is reportedly being put through its final paces in the New Mexican desert. Some 20 feet long and weighing in at 15 tons, this Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, could be the powerful punisher that lets Iran know America means business.

As Politico reveals in a lengthy investigative piece on the MOP, this highly advanced weapon is a formidable big brother to the so-called “bunker buster” weapons the U.S. has used in Middle Eastern conflicts to penetrate and destroy underground targets.

Of the recent tests, Politico writes: “When dropped from an altitude likely above 20,000 feet, the bomb would have approached supersonic speed before striking a mock target in the desert, smashing through rock and burrowing deep into the ground before its 6,000 pounds of high explosives detonated with devastating force.”

The Politico piece quotes a former Pentagon official who has seen video of the tests at New Mexico’s White Sands Missile Range: “It boggles the mind.” That video has not been made public, but a photo of one iteration of the weapon — officially known as BLU-109 — has been released by its maker, Boeing.

Image Credit: Boeing

Image Credit: Boeing

According to sources in the Air Force, as reported by Business Insider, the only aircraft currently capable of carrying the 15-ton MOP and dropping the GPS-guided bomb on its target is the B-2 stealth bomber, the key component of the nation’s long-range strike arsenal.

Image Credit: Wiki Commons

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Infuriated Supreme Court Justice Reveals Perfect New 1-Word Name For Obamacare

Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the dissent in Thursday’s 6-3 King v. Burwell decision, did not hold back taking Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion to task for failing to follow the plain language of the law and the Constitution.

Scalia noted: “You would think the answer would be obvious — so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”

As reported by Western Journalism, President Barack Obama made a very similar statement a few weeks ago–from the entirely opposite perspective, however. Some felt the president was trying to pressure the court to decide his way when he said that the court’s decision is “not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words, and so I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight, when it comes to the interpretation. This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”

Justice Scalia believes the majority in fact did twist the meaning of the four words in question–“established by the State”–to get its desired outcome of upholding the payment of subsidies through the federal healthcare exchange.

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,’” Scalia writes.

He continues: “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

Scalia offers that: “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” given the extraordinary measures taken by the high court on the law’s behalf.

[T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act–[upholding the constitutionality of the law and the payment of subsidies through the federal exchange]–will surely be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and it prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano stood firmly by Scalia’s scathing analysis.

Appearing on Outnumbered, he took note that Justice Roberts, in both major Obamacare cases, “used novel arguments that were not even advanced in the briefs or the oral arguments before the court.”

In 2012’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, neither the government nor the plaintiffs argued the penalties created by the law were a tax; but Roberts wrote in his opinion that it was a tax–therefore, a power that Congress has under the Constitution.

In King v. Burwell, neither side argued that the language in the statute was “ambiguous”; but Roberts wrote that it was, finding it a case of “inartful drafting.”

Justice Scalia posits that even if Roberts is correct that Congress made a mistake, “This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”

He believes that “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in his dissent.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth