No products in the cart.


Obama, Clinton, Sanders Could Stop the Riots But They Just Watch

Is it just me or have you also noticed that Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and President Obama have been silent about the protests?

The very people who have the power to stop these protests and riots with just a few well-spoken words have been completely silent on the issue.

Hillary Clinton

During her concession speech, Clinton said, “We must accept this result, and then look to the future. … Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”

After that, she has been mum on the entire thing.

Hillary Clinton could have asked her followers to stop this nonsense, and they probably would have listened out of respect for her. (Misplaced respect but that’s a whole different article.) Instead, her silence makes me think that she is hidden away, relishing the chaos. That she has done nothing to attempt to calm the situation underlines the fact that she was not fit to govern. A leader would look out for the best interests of a country they love, rather than watching from afar to apply balm to her wounded ego.

Instead, her Twitter is full of Bible quotes (huh?) and mentions nary a word about the protests. It has not been updated since the day after her failed bid.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders, the one from whom the Democratic primary was fraudulently stolen, the one who backed up Hillary Clinton anyway, has also been uncharacteristically silent, especially for an aging peace-and-love hippie kind of guy.

He hasn’t once asked the protesters to be peaceful or to give Trump a chance, but he has fueled the fire with his cries for them to remain vigilant. He’s already opposing Trump before the guy even gets inaugurated.

Even in his essay for the NY Times yesterday, entitled “Where Do Democrats Go From Here?” he did not gently suggest to his supporters that they turn toward peace. He had the opportunity, the platform, and the love from his followers, and his choice to remain silent tells me that he is just as self-serving as the other politicians, despite his humble, grandfatherly demeanor.

President Obama

Then there’s the President, who met cordially with TrumpHis Twitter account is likewise mute on the subject of vandalism, arson, and violence in reaction to the election.

Note to President Obama: I didn’t like it when you were elected either, but I burned neither flags nor effigies. I peacefully dissented throughout your administration but never damaged one single item of property. You screwed the middle class with your horrible health care catastrophe, and yet no one rioted in the streets when you were re-elected to screw us for another four years.

Obama’s only statement of semi-support was on Wednesday, when he said, ““The peaceful transfer of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. We’re actually all on the same team.”

His statement about the riots was via his press secretary.

Since protesters are now actually calling for war and death, if Obama, Clinton, and Sanders really loved America, these three would use their influence to ease the transition and call for peace. Instead, one must wonder if the rumors about a Soros-funded, Clinton-approved Purple Revolution to destabilize America are about to become our new reality.

Oh – and one quick note. It has to be said.


The people calling for war and death are overwhelmingly anti-gun.


They just might want to rethink the wisdom of directing their death threats, physical attacks, and aggression toward Second Amendment proponents.


Read more here:





  1. We have all the proof we need they are treasonous. As for the protesters, Don’t give them any attention and let them burn their own home. Let them wear out their cutesy sniffling. The lefty community will shut them down soon enough, they will no longer be wanted or relevant.

    The hundred or so cry babies that were arrested in Portland were released today after causing millions in damage…wow…how hypocritical and lawless is Oregon. May Oregon rot.

  2. Seems like the OathKeepers, in accordance with the stated mission, would want to be advocates for right to assembly and peaceful forms of protest. The protests against President elect Trump have of course largely been peaceful across the nation, with the exception of typical cities like Portland where local bad actors (who show up in nearly every protest) got out of hand. By contrast, look at the peaceful marches in LA and NYC: much, much larger and without incident.

    I will make a few predictions:

    1. The Left is going to get interested in the 2nd Amendment in a new and surprising way, as it feels threatened over the next several years.

    2. The Right is going to become more interested in marches, peaceful protest.

    Just seems like the OathKeepers would want to be not so hostile as it seems to be towards public protest. How about an article or two about the importance of that Constitutional right?

    1. The overall intent appears to be to guide the protests to violence. This is a radical left strategy — just another of many that will attempt to destroy lawful American lifestyle. Know your enemy.

    2. right to peaceably assemble is not what is at the heart of this article. it is the violent protests in which private property is burned, and individuals are disrespected that is the problem, read the damn article.

      or better yet, go find out about the t3eacher who had her STUDENTS LEAVE SCHOOL TO BLOCK A HIGHWAY IN PROTEST OF PRESIDENT ELECT.

      yes that is right a teacher had her students LEAVE a LEARNING environment for her OWN POLITICAL ACTIVISM, this endangered MULTIPLE children BTW.

      or the left protesters in Vegas WHO ASSUALTED patrons of a casino and hotel as they left the building. of course those assaulted fought back, being tired of this crap.

      lets also not forget the very loud verbal demands of DEATH to the elect-trump, and his followers in NYC.

      these are NOT peaceful assemblies. they are cries for civil war. the problem however is that these lefty nutjobs are severely outgunned, and out trained. it is not in there best interest to pursue civil war. the article is making that assertation that what they want ( civil war) is not in their best health interests and would likely end VERY badly for them.

      so again, this is not about their rights, it’s about their game they are playing at, and their violence. not actual peaceful assembly.

      BTW your thin veil at trying to prompt a negative outlook on the group is easily seen through.

Comments are closed.