Marco Rubio: Four More Years of George W. Bush?!

/14 Comments/in , /by

Ted Cruz’s victory in Iowa changes the game in the 2016 nomination race. “Change” does not mean “clinch.” If Cruz had lost to Trump, his race might well have been over. By triumphing in Iowa despite having flouted the ethanol lobby, Cruz blunted the perception that Trump was a juggernaut, able to shock, mock and berate his way to power. For weeks, Trump’s supporters on social media have been echoing their candidate by calling other contenders (and their partisans) “losers,” suggesting that it was time for Republicans to rally around the “frontrunner.”

That’s all over now. The gold plate has flaked off the giant “T,” and now Trump is just another candidate — one with a long record of ideological flip-flopping, an abrasive (if amusing) personality, and a checkered personal and business history. With all the heaping gobs of free media that Trump has received so far, he still couldn’t win the first contest. That has got to hurt.

Equally important in the long run is the rise of Marco Rubio, who has obviously begun to clear the “establishment” lane in the GOP race. He took 23 percent of the vote, which exceeds the combined votes of his obvious centrist rivals Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina. TV pundits have already begun to speculate as to when the big-money donors who sustain the GOP center will start pressuring those other candidates to drop out of the race — in order to stop the rise of “insurgent” candidates Cruz and Trump. It’s doubtful that any major figures will bail out before New Hampshire; having put so much into running, they might as well roll the dice. It’s a year full of surprises, which alone should sustain some hope, at least for now.

But these lagging candidates probably won’t make an impact. Rubio is likely to walk away with the mantle of the establishment Republican candidate — which in a year like this might prove a mixed blessing in the end. More important in the short-run is whether Ben Carson stays in the race. Having won 10 percent in Iowa, and drawn many “insurgent” and evangelical voters away from Trump and Cruz, Carson’s choices in the next few primaries might make a difference to significant races in South Carolina and Nevada.

As the three-man contest evolves, personalities could give way to policy discussions. I expect the three candidates to split the vote along three readings of American exceptionalism. I will describe each below and offer historical precedents. Those precedents, I should emphasize, are not offered to suggest that Candidate A is exactly like Historical Figure Y. Often there are deep differences in character and political philosophy between them. The point of contact is their view of American exceptionalism.

Pragmatic Nationalism

Donald Trump has adopted this view, which asserts that national cohesion and solidarity should override economic efficiency — hence tariff barriers and other protectionist measures. It concentrates on American “greatness” in terms of economic muscle, military preparedness and assertiveness on behalf of American interests abroad. It pays scant regard to Constitutional niceties like the Separation of Powers or civil liberties, property rights (see eminent domain) or the dictates of just war teaching — much less the international law that grew out of such Christian roots. Hence Trump’s willingness to kill off the family members of terrorists, something which even embattled Israel, under much greater provocation, has never come close to doing. On this view, America is exceptional because it is big and powerful enough to exempt itself from the rules that bind other countries. For historic parallels, see Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson.

Traditional Constitutionalism

This worldview, which used to be called more simply “conservatism,” is most clearly represented by Ted Cruz — a man who is ready with a detailed Constitutional justification of his position on any given issue. For him, the U.S. founding was a providential event, and it documents a kind of secular scripture, which we as citizens must revere as the source of our national self-esteem.

Cruz’s economics are more conventionally free market, convinced as he is by the arguments which conservatives have been making since roughly 1932 against the expansion of state control over citizens’ economic and personal lives.

Cruz’s foreign policy is not blatantly amoral like Trump’s, but his vision of what America can achieve is distinctly tinged by an Augustinian sense that we, too are fallen, and sharply limited in what we can achieve in foreign countries with profoundly alien cultures.

On immigration, Cruz seems more outraged by the blatant disregard for law than he is worried by cultural displacement. However, Cruz sees how the growth of government, and disregard for the Constitution (among other key American traditions) is goaded by mass immigration of low-skilled people from countries without our civic heritage, so he seems willing to pare back legal immigration as well. Given forty years of flat wage growth among less-skilled American workers, and the prominence of Muslims whose deepest religious tenets are anti-Constitutional, Cruz’s position here has significant policy overlap with Trump’s, though the reasons underlying it are different.

For this school of thought, America is exceptional because the civic culture that gave it birth was exceptionally compatible with human flourishing. Not every culture on earth, in foreign nations or among potential immigrants, is compatible with our civics. Historic parallels: William Howard Taft, Calvin Coolidge.

Idealist Internationalism

Of the three, Marco Rubio appears the closest to this view. As with Cruz’s outlook, it is largely free market in outlook but it sees America as exceptional because it is a propositional nation, and its propositions are true — for the whole human race, potentially, as President George W. Bush argued in his Second Inaugural Address. It is our task not simply to stand like Lady Liberty and offer a light to the nations, but to go forth and set a “fire in the mind” (in Bush’s words), exporting if possible democracy and human rights to other lands and cultures, thereby making them our likely allies and partners. This view, which has often been dubbed “neoconservatism,” became prominent during the Cold War, when it offered international Americanism as an alternative to international Communism.

With the fall of Communism and the rise of Islamic jihad, prominent thinkers of the center-right and center-left converged to agree on various forms of this theory as the proper approach to combating Islamist extremism, though they didn’t always agree on how it should be implemented effectively (e.g., the war in Iraq). As Stephen Bannon and Alexander Marlow argue, this theory also has strong implications for immigration policy:

[I]f the issue is saving the world — and it always is — then part of the save-the-world plan means accommodating, and welcoming, refugee flows.

Yes, refugees from Somalia, Syria, anywhere — they all must come here, so that the US can “show leadership.” That is, we must take immigrants by the thousands, even millions, as a way of pointing other countries, as well, to the virtuous path. … Thus it should come as no surprise that National Review’s Johnson reports that one of Rubio’s mentors is former Bush 43 national-security adviser Stephen Hadley. In the White House, Hadley was a champion of open borders, and just recently, he signed a letter with 19 other foreign policy savants, from both parties, calling for the US to take in Syrian refugees.

While Rubio has backed away from the large-scale expansion of low-skill immigrants that was part of his Gang-of-Eight bill, his stance on immigration still bears the stamp of Internationalist optimism about the capacity of America to assimilate migrants from countries with dysfunctional political systems and unfree civic cultures. On this view, America itself is seen as a transformative force, whose philosophical integrity and dynamism renders it almost immune from being itself transformed, by the ideas and habits which large numbers of immigrants bring with them. That’s why Rubio has said that America should welcome Syrian refugees, if it were possible to vet them for current terrorist ties (which he thinks isn’t possible now). A Jackson or a Coolidge would question the wisdom of accepting many thousands of Muslims, with or without terrorist connections.

Here Senator Rubio’s call to unseat Syria’s president Assad is instructive. For the U.S. to cooperate with or even tolerate dictators such as Syria’s Assad (as a lesser evil than the rise of Islamists who might persecute Christians) is for us to admit defeat of our ideals, to surrender our national mission and plunge into moral relativism — suggesting that liberty is only available to certain countries and cultures, especially those with a Christian, or even an Anglo-Protestant heritage. Historical parallels: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George W. Bush.

Of course, on this historical side of the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, the nation-building aspirations of most American policymakers have been tempered to one degree or another. None of the three candidates will speak as President Bush spoke before the Iraq War. And all now avoid direct talk of amnesty and recognize the dangers of Muslim refugees. But the deep differences of world view remain, and they will matter. It will be up to conservative media to make sure that these philosophical differences are discussed with sufficient nuance that voters can decide among them wisely. (For more from the author of “After Iowa, a Three-Man Race: Andy Jackson, Cal Coolidge, and George W.” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Vacationer-In-Chief: Astronomical Spending for Obama Holidays

/4 Comments/in , /by

The taxpayer tab for the vacations for President Obama and his family now has surpassed $74 million, even though Obama once said a president must be prepared to give up taking vacations for the sake of the nation.

The word comes from Judicial Watch, which has been demanding public records from the government and filing lawsuits to get the information about the Obamas’ profligate spending on travel.

Judicial Watch found taxpayers have spent at least $74,124,562.48 on the family’s down times.

“Now that we’ve sued, the Secret Service has stopped ignoring our requests for details on more of the costs of Barack Obama’s luxury vacations,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said on Wednesday.

“Taxpayers, the U.S. Air Force and the Secret Service are being abused by Barack Obama, who too often treats Air Force One and his security detail like some of sort of kingly entourage. Does Barack Obama really think that over $5 million for two family vacations, which include nearly $1 million in Secret Service hotel bills for a two week Martha’s Vineyard vacation, is an appropriate use of tax dollars?” (Read more from “Vacationer-In-Chief: Astronomical Spending for Obama Holidays” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Islam Is Not an Abrahamic Religion

/10 Comments/in , /by

Do Muslims, Jews And Christians Worship The Same God?

This basic question must be addressed and answered in the negative if Western Civilization is to begin to forge an effective defense against Islamic jihad. Dr. Mark Durie, an Australian Anglican theologian, has written the definitive analytical book, “Which God?: Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity & Islam,” that debunks the accepted conventional wisdom that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share Abrahamic roots. Dr. Durie’s book incontestably demonstrates that YHWH and Allah are not the same god. Consequently, Christians and Jews are being misled about the shared identity of the three religions’ divinity. This deception is a key component in the overt and covert war being conducted by the political forces of Islam in order to subjugate the Judeo-Christian religions and their societies.

One of the most dangerous avenues of covert attack is contained in this Muslim assertion that Islam shares Abrahamic roots with Christianity and Judaism. Dr. Durie explains the Islamic covert attack plan in the following paragraph.

There are bountiful examples making the case that YHWH and Allah are not the same god; but in the interest of brevity, here are two salient quotations from the Gospel of Matthew and from Sura 2 of the Quran cited by Dr. Durie. Dr. Durie’s explanation of Matthew 5:43-45 and the quotation of that New Testament scripture follows:

Next, consider Dr. Durie’s comments regarding Quran Sura 2: 190-94 that he also quotes:

One need not be a religious theologian to comprehend that ‘a god’ cannot possibly be the same ‘deity’ when that ‘divine source’ issues completely contradictory instructions to followers on how to behave in exactly the same circumstances.

In regard to the injunction in the Quranic sura quoted above that states: “…aggress not: Allah loves not aggressors,” the Islamic concept of ‘aggression’ needs to be explained. In terms of Islamic thought, aggression only occurs when non-Muslims impede the Islamization of their territory and thus erect obstacles to the Allah-commanded evangelization of Islam throughout the world. Consequently, these non-Muslims are obstructing the will of Allah. Furthermore, since submission to Islam is the only ‘path’ (that is, ‘sharia’) to peace, Muslims believe that they are bringing peace, not aggression, when they engage in jihad, violent or non-violent.

The Shared Abrahamic Origin Lie Of Islam

Abraham’s life is archeologically dated to have occurred circa 2000 B.C. in Mesopotamia and the Fertile crescent, while Mohammad’s Islamic cult first began to take fruition in Mohammad’s imagination in 610 A.D. in Western Arabia. There is, in fact, no genealogical, historical, or archeological evidence linking Abraham and Mohammad. Mohammad claimed Abrahamic lineage for Islam through Abraham’s illegitimate son, Ishmael. Ishmael was the Arab spawn of Abraham and his Egyptian concubine, Hagar. Hagar was eventually exiled along with Ishmael from Abraham’s tribe to the desert of Sinai, not to the desert of Arabia.

The fact which makes Mohammad’s ‘Abrahamic common-ancestor-origin myth’ extremely dubious is that the Ishmaelite-descendant tribes lived not in the Arabia deserts of Mohammad’s Quraish Tribe, but far to the north and west of Arabia by Bronze Age standards in the Sinai and Fertile Crescent deserts. Another historical fact discrediting Mohammad’s fictitious Abrahamic myth is that these Ishmaelite nomadic tribes disappeared from history after 700 B.C, while Mohammad’s Quraish Tribe didn’t occupy Mecca until after 500 B.C.

In order to make sense of Mohammad’s historically fanciful Abrahamic lineage claim, it is necessary to be aware of the ‘Islamic mythological theology’ that the Quran, ‘the Mother of the Book,’ has existed forever with Allah; therefore, according to Islamic theology, the Quran predated Adam, Abraham, Mohammad, and all of mankind. Consequently, according to this Muslim timeline, Abraham was actually a prophet of Islam. And since Abraham is claimed by Muslims to be the patriarch of all three religions, consider how Islamic theology depicts Abraham counseling Muslims to embark on eternal hatred of any persons that do not believe in the ‘Islamic Allah god’ alone, which naturally refers to Christians, Jews, and believers in other faiths. This Quranic portrayal of Abraham is totally contrary to the Judeo-Christian concept of that patriarch, thus invalidating the Islamic claim of shared Abrahamic lineage.

So, Mohammad would have people believe that Allah told him through the Angel Gabriel that, 2600 years before Mohammad lived and proclaimed the existence of Islam, Abraham was instructing future Christians and Jews to practice Islamic submission to Allah. Moreover, should wayward Christian and Jewish ‘descendants of Abraham’ not follow his instructions to serve the Islamic god Allah, then the ‘true heirs of Abraham’ (that is, Muslims) will be justified in loathing those who will not submit to Allah through the practice of Islam until they do. Thus, according to the Islamic Quran, sharing Abrahamic origin really means that the religious patriarch Abraham was prophetically admonishing all his spiritual progeny to disavow the covenants they would make with YHWH in favor of eventual submission to Allah.

Then following that Islamic scriptural perversion of Abraham, consider the egregious Islamic instructions to followers concerning the justness of murderous retribution as cited in Dr. Durie’s book.

It is worthy to note that behind Mohammad’s ‘retribution’ was the motive of plundering Jewish property and enslaving their women and children for sex and profit. At the base motivation of Mohammad’s Islamic religion is always the plunder of the property of non-believers in Islam and their murder, or their enslavement. St. Thomas Aquinas made the following trenchant observation regarding Mohammad’s ‘brigand theology.’

Muhammad enticed peoples with the promise of carnal pleasures, to the desire of which the concupiscence of the flesh instigates. He also delivered commandments in keeping with his promises, by giving the reins to carnal pleasure, wherein it is easy for carnal men to obey: and the lessons of truth which he inculcated were only such as can be easily known to any man of average wisdom by his natural powers: yea rather the truths which he taught were mingled by him with many fables and most false doctrines. Nor did he add any signs of supernatural agency… but he asserted that he was sent in the power of arms, a sign that is not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. Again, those who believed in him from the outset were not wise men practiced in things divine and human, but beastlike men who dwelt in the wilds, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching; and it was by a multitude of such men and the force of arms that he compelled others to submit to his law.

In today’s vernacular, Mohammad was the ‘Godfather’ of a Muslim desert mafia family.

A Christian Perspective Of The Coming Of Mohammad

For Christians, Jesus foretold the coming of Mohammad: “Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15); “ For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the ‘elect’ (that is, ‘Christians’)” (Matthew 24:24); and “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them….” (2 Peter 2:1-3).

As these verses should make abundantly clear to Christians, Christ and the Apostles were very concerned about false prophets and the anti-Christ deceiving Christians. Without a doubt, Christians have been amply forewarned about the coming of Mohammad and Islam. Christians foolishly ignore the New Testament warnings at their peril, as the genocidal execution of Christians by Islamic jihadists in the Middle East provide daily testimony.

Islam’s Blatant War On Judeo-Christian Civilization And Judeo-Christian Leadership’s Politically Correct State Of Denial

The State of Israel’s leadership is well aware of the eternal war between Judaism and Islam mandated by Islamic scripture, but they are constrained in their responses by politically correct world leadership. Consequently, they engage in a ‘diplomatic kabuki dance’ that gives lip service to a fairytale ‘two-state solution.’ Western secular and religious leaders should wake up and realize that Israel is Western Judeo-Christian Civilization’s frontline in the jihadist religious war that Islam is waging against it.

On the other hand, the indisputable worldwide onslaught by Islam against Christianity is very troubling because there is only scant awareness of the Islamic jihadist warfare among the leaders of Christ’s Church, Catholic and Protestant, and because there is no organized Christian effort to repel the overt and covert subversion of the Judeo-Christian religions and culture of Western Civilization. This dire situation cries out for the Christian leaders to finally become fully conversant in Islamic ‘theology,’ that is, their plan for religious jihadist war to impose Islamic Sharia law on all unbelievers.

Christianity, regardless whether its leadership knows it or not, is engaged in existential conflict with Islam. Mohammad’s unequivocal, eternal declaration of war leaves no doubt about the unending, existential nature of the combat: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla [direction of Mecca] and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah’“( Bukhari (8:387)). This ‘Mohammadan war declaration’ may also be found in Sahih Muslim (1:33), Bukhari (2:24), Bukhari (60:40), Bukhari (59:643), and Islamic Sacred Sharia Law (Jihad o9.0 (3)).

Conclusion

As world history makes undeniably crystal clear, religious wars are fought to the death without compromise. The indisputable proof that this is a religious war is found throughout Islamic scripture, but Mohammad’s documented declaration removes any doubt: ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’

The denial of the war being conducted to the blood-curdling screams of ‘Allahu Akbar’ against the Western world by its political and religious leadership will go down in human history as the greatest leadership failure in the annals of mankind. The Western world leadership’s willful blindness is self-induced insanity because it contravenes human self-preservation instinct.

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senator Perdue Blocks Open Borders Judge

/2 Comments/in , /by

As we often highlight studies in cowardice and betrayal, it’s satisfying to finally have the opportunity to spotlight a profile in courage, especially from someone not named Cruz, Lee, Paul, or Sessions. Today I’d like to commend Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) for his work in derailing another Obama judicial nomination.

Last month, we noted that the GOP-Senate plans to confirm more Obama judges this year, allowing him to cement his control over the judiciary. Rather than simply saying “no more judges who don’t believe in the Constitution,” most Republicans are running scared. After all, Mitch McConnell has already announced he wants to avoid all confrontation with the White House this year.

In recent months, the home state Republican senators of these Obama nominees have been instrumental in convincing leadership to schedule votes for their confirmation. Rather than leading the fight against them, these home state senators, ahem…you know who you are, tend to buckle to pressure from liberal judicial groups and local newspaper articles. Senator Perdue has gone in the opposite direction.

Departing from the tradition of obsequiously signing off on judicial picks from his home state, Perdue blocked the nomination of Dax Lopez to serve as a federal district judge for the Northern District of Georgia. Johnny Isakson, the other senator from Georgia, also declined to sign off on the nomination. As a home state member who sits on the Judiciary Committee this took a lot of guts, especially given that Lopez is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society.

You might be wondering, well, if Lopez is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society, why in the world would Perdue block his confirmation? Isn’t this an amazing opportunity, especially during the Obama era?

During the fight over in-state tuition for illegal aliens in Georgia, Lopez wrote a letter in support of taxpayer-funding for illegal aliens to attend state universities. This is par for the course from Lopez who has been affiliated with an open border group, the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO), for 11 years. This organization, according to one local sheriff, “has called for law enforcement to turn a blind eye towards criminals that have illegally penetrated our borders and then perpetrated crimes against the very citizens I am sworn to protect.”

In my upcoming book, “Stolen Sovereignty,” I will make the case that judicial tyranny and open borders – and the intersection of the two – represent the biggest threat to our sovereignty. The legal profession is now violating the sovereignty of the people by granting citizen rights to illegal aliens, the final frontier in judicial activism before we lose our sovereignty as a nation. The courts are now mandating the release of thousands of criminal aliens, including many who would be considered “dreamers” eligible for in-state tuition, into our communities. The determined and well-greased immigration legal field is now suing a number of states, including Georgia, demanding driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. The Ninth Circuit has already tossed out Arizona’s effort to protect its sovereignty on these issues. GALEO is involved in the lawsuit against Georgia. Lopez sat on their board while he was a state judge while this group was fighting every enforcement effort against the state.

Last year, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published a riveting expose on the threat of criminal alien releases to Georgia communities. While much of the fault lies at the feet of the Obama administration, there is a growing long-term problem of judicial amnesty. Unelected judges violating the 200-year-old plenary power doctrine of congress on immigration policy is the most serious issue we face from the judiciary in the coming years. This is an issue we cannot get wrong. And these lawsuits are brought by groups similar to those Lopez was affiliated with for years. The circuitous cycle of electing judges who served as attorneys for left-wing open borders groups is a huge problem across the scope of our government.

Some apologists for Lopez will suggest that his support for open borders as a matter of policy will not have bearings on his legal decisions. Anyone who believes that has not been paying attention to the legal profession and the judiciary. When it comes to those who support liberal policies but uphold originalist jurisprudence when the legal decision conflicts with that policy outcome, we can apply King Solomon’s observation: “…but I found not one man among a thousand have I found” [Ecclesiastes 7:28]. This is exactly why so many “Republican-appointees” are so bad on the judiciary. Yes, even if they have a membership at the Federalist Society. And remember, Obama has never made a mistake with a judicial appointment. He knows what he’s doing.

But isn’t Lopez still better than anyone else Obama would appoint?

Here’s the deal: Obama shouldn’t have the ability to confirm anyone because Republicans control the Senate and Obama has already been afforded the opportunity to appoint 40% of the federal district bench. And that is why Perdue’s stand is so important in the broader context of shutting down this nonsense. It’s good to see a member of Judiciary standing up to Chuck Grassley for using the Senate Judiciary Committee to promote left-wing causes instead of investigating judicial tyranny and the racist Justice Department.

Blocking a “Republican” judge from someone’s home state is bold enough. Doing so in the face of verbal assaults and accusations of racism is downright courageous. Other senators should learn from the example of David Perdue and leave all the remaining judicial appointments to the next president. (For more from the author of “Senator Perdue Blocks Open Borders Judge” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘This Lines up With Scripture’: Michele Bachmann’s Warnings About Biblical End-Times ‘Invasion’ and ‘Global Government’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) believes that signs of the end-times could be upon us, making some biblical claims after saying late last year that she believes that Jesus is “coming soon” and that “we’re seeing the fulfillment of scripture right in front of her eyes.”

In a radio interview posted on the Olive Tree Ministries website, Bachmann pointed to the current collaboration between Iran and Russia inside war-torn Syria, warning that the alliance could have broad implications for the future; she also alluded to the fact that she believes that President Barack Obama would back a global government.

“What we see, which is about to happen, I believe, with Syria … the prediction is that Syria has fallen apart, quite literally,” she said. “But on a political basis, they would be quote ‘partitioned’ in that, although Russia today has control of Syria, they would be partitioning it so that the eastern portion of Syria would effectively be considered disputed, occupied territory by the Islamic State.”

Bachmann continued, “I think the world is about to give legitimacy to the Islamic State, and the Islamic State would have control over eastern Syria and also over Iraq.”

The former politician went on to point out that Syria is on Israel’s border, warning of an event that she believes could eventually come to fruition — one that some believe would be a fulfillment of what many Christians assume to be prophetic scripture. (Read more from “‘This Lines up With Scripture’: Michele Bachmann’s Warnings About Biblical End-Times ‘Invasion’ and ‘Global Government'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ex-Army Recruit Pleads Guilty to Trying to Bomb Fort Riley in Kansas

/1 Comment/in , /by

A former U.S. Army enlistee who vowed to “bring the Islamic State straight to your doorstep” pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempting to detonate a car bomb at Fort Riley military base in Kansas, authorities said.

John T. Booker Jr., 21, an American citizen also known as Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, entered his plea before U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia to one count of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and one count of attempted destruction of government property by fire or explosion, according to a statement from the U.S. Justice Department. He’s to receive a 30-year federal prison sentence.

“John Booker admitted that he intended to kill U.S. military personnel on American soil in the name of ISIL,” John Carlin, assistant attorney general for national security, said in a statement, referring to the terror organization also known as ISIS . . .

Booker admitted in court that his plot involved the construction of a bomb containing 1,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate, according to federal prosecutors. He intended to trigger the bomb himself and filmed a video that was to be shown to Americans after his death in the suicide bombing. (Read more from “Ex-Army Recruit Pleads Guilty to Trying to Bomb Fort Riley in Kansas” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Most Dangerous States in the US in 2015 According to the FBI

/3 Comments/in , /by

The annual list of the most dangerous states in the United States has been released by Law Street, according to a Reboot Illinois piece on Tuesday. The list is compiled via Law Street’s Crime Team’s methodology which uses the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s four major violent crime categories in creating a standard measure of violent crimes-per-100,000 people among all cities reporting its crime data to the FBI that have at least 100,000 persons in its borders. Those four major violent crime categories are: murder, aggravated assault, robbery, and incidents of forcible rape . . .

The Top 10 Most Dangerous States in the United States in 2015

1. Alaska

2. New Mexico

3. Nevada

4. Tennessee

5. Louisiana

6. South Carolina

7. Delaware

8. Maryland

9. Florida

10. Arkansas

(Read more from “Most Dangerous States in the US in 2015 According to the FBI” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Obama Just Made a Ridiculous Statement About Islam That Any Historian Could Debunk

/3 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama said today in a speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore that one fact that has not been “communicated on a regular basis through our media” is that “for more than a thousand years people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.”

“Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Mohammad taught, let him treat people the way he would love to be treated,” Obama said. “And for Christians like myself I am assuming that sounds familiar.”

Here is an excerpt from the president’s speech:

“. . .So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. . . like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity.”

(Read more from “Obama Just Made a Ridiculous Statement About Islam That Is Totally Incorrect” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Growing Conflict of Interest in the Clinton E-Mail Scandal

/0 Comments/in , /by

The latest revelations regarding Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information are stunning. For example, several of the former secretary of state’s “private” e-mails contain national-defense information so sensitive that it is classified at the highest levels.

Moreover, classified information so pervades the thousands of pages of e-mails communicated through and stored on Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured, homebrew server system that the court-ordered disclosure process has ground to a halt. Remember, Mrs. Clinton reviewed her e-mails before finally surrendering them to the State Department, and she initially insisted there was no classified information in them. Now, it turns out they were so threaded with classified information that the State Department and intelligence agencies have fallen hopelessly behind the court’s disclosure schedule: The task of reviewing the e-mails and redacting the portions whose publication could harm national security has proved much more complicated than anticipated. Thousands of remaining e-mails, and any embarrassing lapses they contain, will be withheld from voters until well into primary season.

So egregious have the scandal’s latest developments been that a critical State Department admission from last week has received almost no coverage: Eighteen e-mails between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have been identified, and the government is refusing to disclose them.

The administration’s rationale is remarkable: Releasing them, the White House and State Department say, would compromise “the president’s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel” from top government officials. (Read more from “Obama’s Growing Conflict of Interest in the Clinton E-Mail Scandal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

White High School Girls in Arizona Pose With Racist T-Shirts, Post on Social Media [+video]

/16 Comments/in , /by

According to some students at Desert Vista High School in Phoenix, Arizona, the student body was bracing for a race riot Friday. The reason: six high school girls posed with racist T-shirts and posted the photo on Snapchat social media. Each girl wore a shirt with a letter that, combined, spelled out a common racial slur against blacks. There were also reports of an increased police presence on campus, and of parents being encouraged to pick their children up early from school.

The seniors were to take a class photo of themselves Friday, and it is a tradition for them to wear T-shirts spelling out messages. The offensive shirts did not make it into the photo.

One student told me that a black student who was the boyfriend of one of the girls tried to defend her during lunch in the cafeteria, ending up in a fist fight with a white student. Another one of the girls has dated a black student. Desert Vista students received threats on Twitter the rest of the day.

The school has had several hostile race-related incidents in the past. Located in the Phoenix suburb Ahwatukee, sarcastically referred to as “All-White-Tukee,” the school has only a few black students.

The consequences will be harsh, as this is likely to make the national news and follow these girls around in the future. It is being reported that one of the girls has already lost a full scholarship to Northern Arizona University and was kicked off the soccer team, where she was the team captain. Parents are calling the school requesting that the girls be suspended or expelled.

One student told me this clique of girls had a reputation for taking photos of people and posting them on social media with cruel comments.

The district was quick to condemn the incident. “I cannot stress enough how upset and absolutely outraged the principal is, the administration is at Desert Vista,” said Jill Hanks in an emailed statement, who is a spokesperson for Tempe Union High School District, which runs Desert Vista. “It is absolutely unacceptable. It will not be tolerated, and we will issue discipline according to our district policies,” said Hanks. An inside source within the school district said off the record that the girls will be suspended for five days, which the school district has not officially confirmed. (“White High School Girls in Arizona Pose With Racist T-Shirts,” originally published HERE)