The Betrayal Of Law Enforcement By Eric Holder

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, an unarmed 18 year old, 6’4”, 290 male, was shot and killed by Ferguson Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson. Immediately prior to the shooting, Brown committed a strong-arm robbery at a local convenience store. These facts are not in dispute.

Soon after the incident, there were accusations that Michael Brown had attempted to surrender to Officer Wilson and had his hands up, pleading, “don’t shoot.” Riots ensued; and through the lenses of aggressive media outlets, all eyes were on Ferguson, Missouri. The president called Michael Brown’s parents to offer his condolences and assure the nation that the Department of Justice would conduct an investigation.

On November 25, 2014, a St. Louis grand jury, after hearing all the evidence, chose not to indict Officer Wilson. All of the above listed facts are not in dispute.

On March 4, 2015, the Department of Justice released their report on the shooting. What happens next should make anyone who carries a firearm, from police officers to concealed carriers, extremely nervous. Rather than follow the facts within the report, then-Attorney General Eric Holder chose “Social Justice” over “True Justice”. A.G. Holder stated the following at the press conference:

This morning, the Justice Department announced the conclusion of our investigation and released a comprehensive, 87-page report documenting our findings and conclusions that the facts do not support the filing of criminal charges against Officer Darren Wilson in this case. Michael Brown’s death, though a tragedy, did not involve prosecutable conduct on the part of Officer Wilson.

Now to many, that may not sound so bad. But anyone who took the time to read the report quickly learned that the shooting of Michael Brown was justified and completely exonerated Officer Darren Wilson. Numerous African American witnesses supported Officer Wilson’s actions that day. One witness stated:

Wilson did not fire his gun as Brown ran from him. Brown then turned around and “for a second” began to raise his hands as though he may have considered surrendering, but then quickly “balled up in fists” in a running position and “charged” at Wilson. Witness 104 described it as a “tackle run,” explaining that Brown “wasn’t going to stop.” Wilson fired his gun only as Brown charged at him, backing up as Brown came toward him. Witness 104 explained that there were three separate volleys of shots. Each time, Brown ran toward Wilson, Wilson fired, Brown paused, Wilson stopped firing, and then Brown charged again. The pattern continued until Brown fell to the ground, “smashing” his face upon impact. Wilson did not fire while Brown momentarily had his hands up. Witness 104 explained that it took some time for Wilson to fire, adding that she “would have fired sooner.”

Witness after witness supported the shooting as reasonable and justified. The witnesses’ accounts detailed exactly what happened that day and matched up with the details provided by Officer Wilson and the forensic evidence. All the witnesses agreed that Michael Brown never had his hands up to surrender and, after attacking Officer Wilson in the patrol car, getting shot in the hand and running away, turned back around and charged Officer Wilson in a rage. Another witness stated:

According to Witness 102, he saw Brown standing on the driver’s side of the SUV, bent over with his body through the driver’s window from the waist up. Witness 102 explained that Brown was “wrestling” through the window, but he was unable to see what Wilson was doing. After a few seconds, Witness 102 heard a gunshot. Immediately, Brown took off running in the opposite direction from where Witness 102 was standing. Witness 102 heard something metallic hit the ground. Witness 102 thought that he had just witnessed the murder of a police officer because a few seconds passed before Wilson emerged from the SUV. Wilson then chased Brown with his gun drawn, but not pointed at Brown, until Brown abruptly turned around at a nearby driveway. Witness 102 explained that it made no sense to him why Brown turned around. Brown did not get on the ground or put his hands up in surrender. In fact, Witness 102 told investigators that he knew “for sure that [Brown’s] hands were not above his head.” Rather, Brown made some type of movement similar to pulling his pants up or a shoulder shrug, and then “charged” at Wilson. It was only then that Wilson fired five or six shots at Brown. Brown paused and appeared to flinch, and Wilson stopped firing. However, Brown charged at Wilson again, and again Wilson fired about three or four rounds until Brown finally collapsed on the ground. Witness 102 was in disbelief that Wilson seemingly kept missing because Brown kept advancing forward. Witness 102 described Brown as a “threat,” moving at a “full charge.” Witness 102 stated that Wilson only fired shots when Brown was coming toward Wilson. It appeared to Witness 102 that Wilson’s life was in jeopardy.

What A.G. Holder should have done that day is admit the facts:

  • Michael Brown committed a strong-arm robbery.
  • Michael Brown attacked a police officer when contacted on the streets.
  • Michael Brown, while beating the officer in his patrol car, was shot in the hand.
  • Michael Brown never had his hands up and never said “don’t shoot.”
  • The shooting of Michael Brown was completely justified, and Officer Darren Wilson is exonerated.

But that didn’t happen. The facts from DOJ’s own report support everything I just listed, but somehow that didn’t get relayed to the nation. Instead, A.G. Holder then went into a new DOJ report detailing the ticketing practices of the Ferguson Police department and how it significantly impacted the black community. I don’t have a problem with anyone presenting evidence of poor enforcement practices by the Ferguson Police Department if changes need to be made, but what got skipped over here was the fact that the shooting of Michael Brown was justified.

This should matter to every citizen who carries a gun because it means it doesn’t matter if the shooting was lawful or justified. The important thing is “social justice”; and if you get run over on the road to “social justice,” so be it. A.G. Holder had an obligation to every person sworn to uphold the laws of this fine nation. As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States Government, A.G. Holder had an obligation to present the facts to the American people. He failed every person across the country that wears a badge; and did an injustice to us all by not clearing Officer Wilson’s good name.

DOJ Report on Michael Brown Shooting

Eric Holder Press Conference on Michael Brown Shootings

John Risenhoover is a Marine Corp veteran who served 26 years with ATF as a Senior Special Agent, Branch Chief and National Coordinator. While at ATF, he developed the DOJ and ATF National Strategy to combat actual gun violence without infringing on Americans’ 2nd Amendment Rights. He carries a Glock 27 in an Alien Gear 3.0 Cloak Tuck holster.

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

Obama Granting Gun Rights To Illegal Aliens While Dissolving Our Borders

The Obama administration intends to unleash a scorched earth campaign over the next 18 months, with a promise to “squeeze every last ounce of progress” and continue “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Following what some in the media are calling his best week ever, the president was asked how he plans to utilize his newfound political capital. An elated Obama told the press corps that “The list is long,” referring to his 2015 Unified Agenda which identifies the upcoming regulatory actions to be taken by federal bureaucracies.

While the Spring 2015 Unified Agenda is markedly vague concerning most of its 3,415 regulations, clearly its overarching purpose is to enforce American compliance with an ever-expanding body of “international norms” like those required by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Consequently, the 2015 Unified Agenda contains a number of backdoor gun control measures designed to further restrict the possession, storage, sale and acquisition of firearms and ammunition by law-abiding citizens; yet in contrast, the Obama administration intends to lessen such restrictions for non-citizens.

Rule 1140-AA44, originally signed by Eric Holder, “would finalize an interim rule published on June 7, 2012 that removes the 90-day state residency requirement for aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or acquire a firearm.”

Rule 1140-AA05 will “require a firearms purchaser’s affirmative statement of his or her state of residence”–although with states like California, New York and even Georgia providing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, a person could enter the country illegally and then purchase a gun on the same day.

Another rule, 1140-AA08, opens the door for nearly unrestricted importation of firearms and ammunition by non-immigrants, i.e., aliens that are in the country temporarily.

Generally, the importation of firearms or ammunition by non-immigrant aliens is prohibited by law. Yet the exemptions provided by 1140-AA08 would make sidestepping this prohibition as easy as being “admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes,” or by simply filling out a permit application and affirming that one is not in the country on a non-immigrant visa.

Due to Obama’s relaxation of border security and immigration enforcement, the nearly 12 million people who have crossed our borders without any type of visa have now been granted quasi-legal protections. Therefore, under 1140-AA08, this massive population is free to import arms and ammunition without any oversight after entering the country.

These rules are bizarre contradictions for an administration whose effort to deny Americans their birthright to bear arms has been a political hallmark. Even before Obama began fighting gun ownership from the White House, he demonstrated unwavering opposition to an Illinois bill that affirmed a person’s right to protect against home invasion using a firearm. Likewise, Eric Holder famously called for Americans to be “brainwashed” into an anti-gun mindset (see video) and led the Justice Department as it conspired to kill the Second Amendment by exploiting the inevitable fallout from Operation Fast and Furious.

While resolute in the effort to disarm Americans, the 2015 Unified Agenda is evidence that both Obama and Holder have for years been simultaneously working to grant illegal immigrants and non-citizens unprecedented access to loosely controlled firearms. To understand these otherwise inexplicable rules, they must be put in context with the policies concerning immigration and trade handed down to Obama from previous presidents.

Leading up to last month’s historic vote enabling Obama to move forward with his secret trade negotiations, Senator Jeff Sessions fought vigorously in opposition, warning that approval would put the US under the authority of an unaccountable international commission similar to the floundering European Union (EU). The deal was even described as “NAFTA on Steroids,” harkening back to George H.W. Bush’s trade deal with Canada and Mexico that led to a massive trade deficit for the United States and caused an unprecedented spike in illegal immigration.

However, Obama’s trade and immigration policies were more directly inherited from George W. Bush, who in 2005 met in Waco, Texas, with Mexican president Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Justified as a tool for “increasing and enhancing security and prosperity in the United States, Canada, and Mexico,” the main purpose of the SPP is “eliminating barriers to labor and capital flows across national borders.”

Predating the United Nations and the EU, the formation of a unified American megastate became official US policy in 1948 with the creation of the Organization of American States (OAS). Every US president since Harry Truman has appointed an ambassador to the United States Permanent Mission to the Organization of American States, whose stated principles include collective security, consolidation of government, fulfillment of obligations to the UN Charter, and effective limitation of conventional weapons. As with the European Union, a transnational union of the Western Hemisphere will require incredibly draconian and homogeneous gun laws in order to limit conventional weapons in the hands of non-state parties.

The CIFTA treaty, drafted by the OAS and sponsored by Barack Obama, defines “Illicit Manufacturing” as “the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related material” “without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party”. This provision would thereby require a federal license for literally every American gun owner who assembles a weapon after breaking it down for cleaning, in addition to requiring separate licenses for those who reload ammunition.

As the “unrestricted flow of labor and capital” ultimately mandates that all laws be standardized across the former nations that comprise a transnational union, Second Amendment activists, as well as citizens that are opposed to Obamacare, the threats to private property rights, global taxation without representation (also see here), and the Texans that have been fighting the Trans-Texas Corridor (a.k.a. the Port to Plains Corridor) would do well to recognize that they all share a common enemy and find ways to coordinate their efforts accordingly.

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

Conservatives Demand Action To Protect Privacy

A number of national conservative groups have written a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary committees demanding quick passage of the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act (LEADS Act), a bill that would reverse the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) attempt to grab jurisdiction of most every piece of data stored on cloud computing systems all over the world. 

The legislation was prompted when Eric Holder’s Justice Department demanded Microsoft turn over electronic communications of an Irish citizen that were housed on a cloud server of an Irish subsidiary of the company. Lawyers note that if the materials in question were written forms of communication, as opposed to electronic, the US government would be required by treaty to get the Irish government’s sign-off before they could get access to the material. Instead, DOJ sought to bypass Dublin and demanded Microsoft turn over the material without the Irish government’s approval.

Signed by representatives from Americans for Tax Reform, Digital Liberty, Citizens Against Government Waste, Let Freedom Ring, and other organizations, the letter states: “Until now, the U.S. Government has relied on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to reach data of foreign citizens stored abroad so long as the company storing the data had a presence on U.S. soil. This practice creates distrust of American businesses and encourages foreign citizens, companies and countries to stop doing business with U.S. companies operating overseas. Eventually, this will harm U.S. companies and threaten America’s leadership in cloud computing technology.”

The letter is a reminder that “the U.S. Government can obtain emails wherever stored simply by serving a warrant on a provider subject to U.S. process; nothing stops other countries – including China and Russia – from seeking to obtain emails of Americans stored on servers in the United States. The LEADS Act addresses these problems by amending ECPA to clarify that law enforcement may use a warrant to obtain electronically stored communications overseas if the account- holder is a U.S. person. This extends the traditional reach of a warrant beyond U.S. borders, but is appropriately responsive to the global nature of electronic data storage in the 21st Century. The legislation provides that the U.S. law enforcement cannot require disclosure of data stored abroad if the data is not associated with a U.S. person or if accessing that data would violate the laws of the country where it is stored. Instead, the U.S. must work with the host country to obtain the data.”

The LEADS Act, introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Rep. Tom Morino, R-Pa., is supported by a host of tech companies like Microsoft and IBM as well as groups like the Business Software Alliance.

Two lower courts have sided with the government, and the Supreme Court has been asked to take up the case. Should they refuse, and legislation is not enacted, the DOJ would assume jurisdiction of most of the Internet, marking another blow against privacy. 

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

Ted Cruz Obliterates AG Nominee Loretta Lynch And Republican Senate Majority For Allowing Her Nomination

Early Thursday morning, ahead of Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, ranted about current Attorney General Eric Holder, the likelihood of having Lynch as his successor, and the Republican Senate majority. He argued that as bad as Eric Holder has been as the attorney general, Lynch would be just as bad, if not worse.

Cruz, who is running for president, posed a tough question to the Senate: what difference would it make whether Republicans or Democrats dominate the Senate, if someone arguably promising to be just like Holder is nominated as AG?

Cruz concluded his speech by saying that any senator who votes in favor of Lynch would ultimately violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution–and would have to explain said vote to their constituents.

Just recently, as Western Journalism reported, the Senate approved Lynch on a 56-43 vote. 10 Republicans disregarded Cruz’s advice and supported her nomination: Kelly Ayotte, (N.H.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

h/t: Right Scoop

Is there a difference between a Republican or Democratic majority? Why didn’t these ten Republicans heed Cruz’s advice? Will Lynch be just as bad as Holder? Let us know what you think.

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

Breaking: What These 10 Republicans Just Did Gives A HUGE Boost To Obama’s Executive Amnesty

After a wait of more than five months since President Obama nominated her to replace Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch has been confirmed by the Senate as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. The vote Thursday afternoon saw more Republicans than expected giving their approval to the controversial nominee, with ten GOP senators joining all Democrats in the upper chamber to propel Lynch into the top Justice Department post.

Still, as Fox News reports: “The vote total for Lynch was the lowest for any attorney general since Michael Mukasey won confirmation with 53 votes in 2007 after Democrats decried his refusal to describe waterboarding as torture.”

In Lynch’s case, a number of Republicans had decried her endorsement of President Obama’s executive order on amnesty. Western Journalism reported on her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, in which Lynch said she had reviewed the legal rationale behind Obama’s unilateral action to bypass the Congress and change immigration rules for millions of illegals, and she found the president’s actions to be proper and justified.

Curiously, in the same hearing, Lynch told the panel that the U.S. Constitution would be her “lodestar” in making decisions if she were to become attorney general. Many conservatives have contended that Obama’s actions on immigration, as well as Lynch’s expressed support of those executive orders, are not in line with the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

The Senate vote to confirm Loretta Lynch clears the way for her to be sworn in as the nation’s first African-American woman to head up the Department of Justice. Lynch currently serves as a federal prosecutor in New York state.

Image Credit: Wiki Commons

Image Credit: Wiki Commons

The Hill provides a list of Republican senators who voted in favor of confirmation — a list that, surprisingly, includes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had earlier indicated he was inclined to vote against Lynch.

“Ten Republican senators broke ranks and sided with Democrats to get Lynch over the 50-vote threshold: Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.).”

The Hill points out that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who had indicated he would stand against Lynch and even delivered a floor speech earlier today opposing her nomination, missed the vote. The reason, as of this writing, is unclear.

In speaking out against the confirmation prior to the vote, one passionate GOP senator called for the confirmation of a nominee who would vow to uphold the Constitution and not support Obama’s executive action that many claim violates both the letter and the spirit of the law.

“Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) added that senators should [not] confirm someone who has ‘publicly committed to denigrating Congress [and] violating the laws of Congress.’”

It has not yet been announced when Loretta Lynch will take the oath of office to replace Eric Holder.

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