ISIS Starves Civilians to Force Them Into Fighting for the Caliphate

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Islamic State is withholding food and water from citizens in Mosul in an effort to force them into joining the terrorist organization, according to an Iraqi non-profit.

The beleaguered terrorist organization has suffered personnel and territory losses since the U.S.-backed Iraqi Security Forces began operations to retake Mosul in October. Combat operations in Mosul have led to intense, street-to-street fighting in the city’s western area. ISIS is now forcibly conscripting the thousands of locals who remain by withholding food and water, according to a report by the Iraqi Observatory for Human Rights.

“An infant and its sister [have] died last week in Uruba neighborhood due to lack of food,” the report stated. “Now their mother is facing the same fate as she is in a very bad health condition.”

Some local civilians have given into ISIS to survive.

A single hospital in Mosul has seen hundreds of cases of malnourished and dehydrated people, mostly children, a representative told the Observatory. (Read more from “ISIS Starves Civilians to Force Them Into Fighting for the Caliphate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Insane Punishment a School Gave a Teen Over a Water Gun

/0 Comments/in , /by

What is the appropriate punishment for a high school student found on campus in possession of a water gun?

The Autauga County Board of Education, which covers communities near Montgomery, Alabama, decided that a 16-year-old girl with a water gun was in violation of the board’s firearms policy. So Sara Allena “Laney” Nichols received a one-year expulsion.

According to a report in the Montgomery Advertiser, Laney explained that she acquired the water pistol “as a joke” from a male classmate in a school hallway at Prattville High School.

The school’s security cameras captured footage of Laney holding the toy gun, but not of the male student holding it at any time. He received no punishment.

Laney said she put the water pistol in her backpack and then, the same day, on the back seat of her car in the school parking lot. It went unnoticed by the principal and school officials until a classmate reported to the administration a few days later that Laney had a gun.

Prattville High officials, following proper procedures, questioned Laney. She told them that the purported gun was really a water gun and was in her car, parked on school grounds, at that time. Confirming that Laney, in fact, possessed a harmless piece of plastic, school officials successfully cleared the threat.

Laney’s mother, Tara Herring, says her daughter got a 10-day suspension. Herring conceded that the black water pistol may have looked like a real gun at first glance, but is made of plastic and clearly distinguishable the second someone touches it.

That could have been the end of the story, but the school board decided to hand down a one-year expulsion for Laney’s violation of the Parent/Student Code of Conduct, which classifies possession of a weapon as a “major offense” punishable by expulsion.

The board’s Policy Manual prohibits students from possessing firearms on school grounds, including cars parked in the school lot. “Any student who violates this policy shall be expelled for a period of one year,” it says.

The Policy Manual, however, also provides that the superintendent of schools “may modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.” Thus far, Superintendent Spence Agee has declined to comment on the incident, although if he has any common sense, he’ll modify this draconian penalty.

Also at issue is whether Laney’s water pistol even qualifies as a prohibited firearm under school board rules. The Code of Conduct broadly defines a firearm as an object that “is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive charge or by compressed air or by spring action.”

A water gun could fall under this broad definition of a firearm only if water qualifies as a projectile and the plastic toy uses compressed air or a spring mechanism to release it. Surely, the board did not envision a harmless water gun when it adopted its firearm prohibition.

The Policy Manual provides an even stricter definition by adopting the definition of a firearm provided by federal law (18 U.S.C. § 921). Under the statute, a “firearm” is “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” Notably, not a water gun.

As the New Jersey State Supreme Court once reasoned, the statute is “talking about a real gun capable of discharging a projectile of some sort, not talking about a toy gun, not talking about a water gun, not talking about a plastic gun that can’t fire a projectile” (State v. Gantt (1986).

Laney’s water pistol is not a firearm under the adopted definition of Autauga County schools’ Policy Manual.

Education officials are understandably hypersensitive to threats of guns on campus, but the danger posed by real guns at school should not allow for a gross overreaction that could derail a student’s academic career.

Conflicting standards, overly broad definitions, and vague policies plague the criminal justice system with the possibility of absurd results. The same is happening here.

In this case, Agee should yield to reason, if not compassion, and use his discretion to modify the expulsion or yield to the statutory definition of a firearm to reduce the level of Laney’s offense.

Laney’s family has hired a lawyer and is threatening to sue if the school board does not act to remove the “scarlet letter E” (expulsion) from Laney’s record. It should not take a lawsuit to determine that a water pistol is not a firearm.

A 16-year-old girl deserves more from America’s public education system than a one-year expulsion for possession of a water gun. (For more from the author of “The Insane Punishment a School Gave a Teen Over a Water Gun” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump to Announce ‘Tremendous Things’ for Veterans Health Care

/0 Comments/in , /by

Some veterans organizations don’t think a bill President Donald Trump signed Wednesday expanding private care options for veterans goes far enough.

Trump seemed to agree, which is why he said more announcements are coming next week regarding veteran care.

“There is still much work to do. We will fight each and every day to deliver the long-awaited reforms our veterans deserve and to protect those who have so courageously protected each and every one of us,” Trump said in the Roosevelt Room Wednesday after signing the Veterans Choice Program Extension Act.

The bill allows veterans to get private health care treatment outside the Department of Veterans Affairs system, but it will still be paid for by the VA.

Trump said he and Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin will announce more steps to improve veterans’ health care at a press conference on April 27. The press conference, highlighting one of his key issues, comes near Trump’s 100-day mark since taking office.

“We’re going to have a news conference with David and some others to tell you about all of the tremendous things that are happening at the VA, what we’ve done in terms of progress and achievement,” Trump said.

Trump made improving health care for veterans a major theme during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump’s signing extends a law that was about to sunset, put in place as an emergency response to the VA waiting list scandal that first came to light in 2013, when veterans were often denied care, and in some cases even died.

“The veterans have poured out their sweat and blood and tears for this country for so long and it’s time that they are recognized and it’s time that we now take care of them and take care of them properly,” Trump said.

Trump noted the legislation allows veterans to see “the doctor of their choice” without being required to travel a long distanced to receive care.

“It’s not going to happen anymore,” Trump said.

This is only a good first step, said Mark Lucas, the executive director of Concerned Veterans for America, who attended the signing ceremony.

“The Choice Program was passed as a quick fix to the wait list manipulation scandal that broke three years ago, and while it’s helped, too many veterans still are forced to seek care at failing VA facilities,” Lucas said in a public statement. “Congress now has some time to work with Secretary Shulkin on broader, more permanent choice reforms that will truly put the veteran at the center of their health care and remove VA bureaucrats as the middlemen.”

The Choice Program was initially created by the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014. It provided the VA an additional $10 billion in emergency funding to expand veterans’ access to care, but came with a three-year sunset clause. That meant the VA had to either use or lose the $1 billion remaining.

The new bill that Trump signed into law on Wednesday addressed some issues that veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars had expressed concerns about. The new law eliminates the secondary payer requirement, clarifying that VA is the payer of care, not veterans. It also makes it easier to share medical documentation with Choice Program providers, so veterans don’t have to face unnecessary delays when scheduling appointments.

Though more announcements are coming at next week’s press conference, the VA secretary didn’t want to minimize the new law.

“This is a good day for veterans,” Shulkin said at the Roosevelt Room signing ceremony. “This is a great day to celebrate not only what veterans have contributed to this country but how we are making things better for them, and by working together, we’re going to continue this progress.”

Also, attending the event were Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and Senate Veterans Affairs Chairman Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., as well as Florida Gov. Rick Scott and House Veterans Affairs Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. (For more from the author of “Trump to Announce ‘Tremendous Things’ for Veterans Health Care” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After State Department Snub, Senators Look to ‘Other Means’ to Investigate Tax Dollars Propping up Soros Work

/2 Comments/in , /by

Republican senators could investigate U.S. tax dollars funding liberal billionaire George Soros’ networks abroad “through other means” if the Trump administration’s State Department doesn’t provide answers.

Six GOP senators wrote Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in March to ask for a State Department probe into how the federal grants are being used by Soros-funded Open Society Foundations, specifically in Macedonia and Albania, to promote progressive causes and undermine conservative and moderate political leaders in those countries. The State Department Bureau of Legislative Affairs responded not by addressing the question of a probe, but defending the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.

Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Ted Cruz of Texas, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and David Perdue of Georgia made the initial inquiry to Tillerson. Lee hoped for more in the response.

“Sen. Lee was not satisfied with the letter and believes the matter needs to be reviewed by Secretary Tillerson,” Lee spokesman Conn Carroll told The Daily Signal in a statement. “If the State Department is unwilling to give this a serious look, we will look at options to force the issue through other means.”

Neither the State Department nor USAID responded to inquiries from The Daily Signal for this story.

The Open Society Foundations also did not respond to request for comment on this story.

The March 14 letter from the senators to Tillerson asks the department to “investigate all funds associated with promoting democracy and governance and review the programs, accounts, and multiplicity of U.S. entities involved in such activities.”

The letter also states that the U.S. must “review how all our tax dollars are being utilized in order to halt activities that are fomenting political unrest, disrespecting national sovereignty and civil society, and ultimately undermine our attempts to build beneficial international relationships.”

When members of a president’s own party write to a Cabinet secretary, a more direct response might be anticipated. In this case, a career State Department employee signed a letter in response—which didn’t satisfy Lee. Joseph E. Macmanus, the State Department’s executive secretary, signed a March 23 letter that never directly responded to the call for an investigation.

“USAID issues clear guidelines to its missions and implementing partners that USAID assistance programs must adhere to the principle of supporting representative, multiparty systems, and must not seek to determine election outcomes,” the Macmanus letter said.

The response continues: “U.S. policy in Macedonia is to support the country’s Euro-Atlantic integration and the reforms necessary to advance that goal. … In Albania, U.S. policy supports the country’s accession to the European Union and the reforms necessary to advance that goal. This includes funding and support for judicial reform, for fighting corruption and organized crime and countering violent extremism.”

The senators highlighted the countries mentioned above in their original letter to Tillerson, which said:

As the recipient of multiple grant awards and serving as a USAID contractor implementing projects in this small nation of 2.1 million people, our taxpayer funding foreign aid goes far, allowing Foundation Open Society-Macedonia (FOSM) to push a progressive agenda and invigorated the political left.

USAID has provided the Soros-funded Open Society Foundation $4.8 million in Macedonia, according to Judicial Watch.

In conducting its own investigation, obtaining documents, and doing interviews with officials from the U.S. and Macedonia, Judicial Watch announced in a press release Wednesday that it has learned:

The Open Society Foundations has established and funded dozens of leftwing, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Macedonia to overthrow the conservative government. One Macedonian government official interviewed by Judicial Watch in Washington D.C. recently, called it the ‘Soros infantry.’ The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets, and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government. One of the Soros groups funded the translation and publication of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ into Macedonian.

In Albania, corruption and crime includes drug trafficking. Soros is a known supporter of relaxed drug laws, and is also leading the country’s effort in judicial reforms, which GOP senators say could be designed to boost the country’s socialist prime minister, Edi Rama.

Foundation Open Society-Albania (FOSA) and its experts, with funding from USAID, have created the controversial Strategy Document for Albanian Judicial Reform. Some leaders believe these “reforms” are ultimately aimed to give the Prime Minister and left of center government full control over judiciary power.

(For more from the author of “After State Department Snub, Senators Look to ‘Other Means’ to Investigate Tax Dollars Propping up Soros Work” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Never Forget: Hero Cop Who Blew Whistle on OKC Bombing Did NOT Commit Suicide

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Instead of being treated as the hero he truly was, Sgt. Terrance Yeakey was silenced by his own government in an effort to keep him from exposing their complicity in one of the largest mass murders in American history – which senselessly ended the lives of 168 people, including 19 children.

According to his widow, instead of being showered with accolades by the US government for his heroism, Yeakey was killed, with his death being framed to look like a suicide (although a very poorly staged one) only days before receiving the police department’s Medal of Valor for his heroic rescue efforts on day of the Oklahoma City bombing.

On May 11, 1996, only days after Yeakey’s death, the New York Times ran a story with the headline – ‘A Policeman Who Rescued 4 in Bombing Kills Himself’ – but the bold assertion — that hero cop Sgt. Terrance Yeakey killed himself — couldn’t be further from the truth.

While the NY Times article claimed that Yeakey committed suicide because he was living in such emotional pain from not being able to do more to help the people injured in the bombing, and that he was suffering from intense survivor guilt which he was unable to manage, this information has been repeatedly refuted by Yeakey’s family.

In an effort to further muddy the waters surrounding his death, the Times story went on to claim:

The police are investigating a report that Sergeant Yeakey had violated an order barring him from going near his former wife, said Capt. Bill Citty, a spokesman. Sergeant Yeakey also had a similar order against her, Captain Citty said. Efforts to locate her today were unsuccessful.

Let’s set the record straight.

Sgt. Yeakey’s body was found in a field in El Reno, OK, over a mile away from his abandoned vehicle. There was an extremely large amount of blood found in his vehicle, he had been bound, had rope burn on his neck, ligature marks on his wrists, numerous deep cuts, likely tortured and killed execution-style with a single bullet that entered his right temple at a 45-degree angle. To top it off, no gun was found at the scene of his death — until an FBI agent showed up and suspiciously found a gun in an already thoroughly searched area within 5 minutes of being there.

Sgt. Terrance Yeakey was a 7-year veteran of the Oklahoma City PD, one of the first on the scene of the OKC bombing at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Yeakey became known as a hero after saving the lives of eight people on the morning of April 19, 1995. However, he was uncomfortable being looked at as a hero and didn’t consider himself one, only as a man doing his job.

Far from being suicidal, Yeakey was in the process of achieving some major life goals. He was scheduled for a final interview for a job with the FBI in Irving, TX, and with hopes of being hired to work for the FBI in Dallas. In direct contradiction to the Times‘ nebulous reporting about the Yeakey’s potential relationship trouble, the couple had recently reconciled and had discussed getting remarried.

The real story behind Yeakey’s death, as attested to by his ex-wife, Tonia Yeakey, is that he witnessed things during his response to the bombing which did not agree with the ‘official version’ of events being forwarded by law enforcement and national media at that time and began collecting evidence to support his contentions.

In an interview on AM1300 KAKC, in 1998, Tonia Yeakey clearly exposes the reality underpinning the death of Terrance Yeakey. The extremely important interview with Tonia Yeakey can be heard in the video below — and begins at the 8-minute mark (please watch):

Although no one is sure exactly what Yeakey witnessed, or what exact information he had collected, according to friends and family, he was being intimidated by federal authorities due to his pursuit of the truth and the information in his possession. Additionally, forces within the OCPD were trying to pressure him into signing off on a version of events from the morning of the bombing to which Terry was resistant to do, as he wanted his report to reflect the truth as he witnessed it, according to his ex-wife Tonia.

Essentially, Yeakey was under constant pressure for his refusal to go along with official versions of events during and after the OKC bombing; and because of his refusal to change his story about what he saw that fateful day, he was the target of horrific persecution from his brothers in law enforcement.

Yeakey had compiled his findings in a storage facility outside of El Reno, Oklahoma. Adding weight to the theory that he was “suicided” to keep him quiet, his last known words were,

As soon as I shake these Feds that are following me, I’ll be back and we’ll go to dinner.

Terrance Yeakey was never heard from again.

Immediately upon being notified of Terrance Yeakey’s death, his family insisted that Yeakey had not killed himself — and to this day they maintain that he was murdered and DID NOT commit suicide.

The reality is that there was a high-level federal operation called PATCON, which infiltrated the “patriot movement” across the US, during the Clinton administration, with informants and provocateurs that are likely connected in some way to the OKC bombing. It’s more than probable that Yeakey’s killing was carried out in an effort to cover up the extent to which federal assets, working under PATCON (i.e. informants/provocateurs/infiltrators), were involved in the OKC bombing plot, thus shielding the federal government from potential blowback.

Please watch the extremely informative and startling video below about Sgt. Terrance Yeakey and learn in more detail about the events that surrounded Terry’s death.

Please share this story to help expose this vast coverup — and the murder of a real American hero! (For more from the author of “Never Forget: Hero Cop Who Blew Whistle on OKC Bombing Did NOT Commit Suicide” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Question for Leftists and Progressives: Is This What You Mean by ‘Equality’?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I did not intend to write about this story, but when I saw a picture of the teenager in question, I had to. He is 15-years-old, clearly a biological male. Look at his picture for yourself, mustache and all. As Joy Pullman notes on The Federalist, he has “not taken drugs nor undergone surgery to mimic femininity.” Yet he was allowed to compete against girls in a recent sporting event, and to no one’s surprise, he won — quite handily, at that. Is this what is meant by “equality”?

In recent weeks, we’ve read about a female high-school wrestler who identifies as male and who has been taking testosterone to prepare to “transition” to male. Unsurprisingly, she defeated the other girls, all of whom are not taking testosterone.

We also read about a male weightlifter who now identifies as female. Unsurprisingly, he defeated the women he competed against, setting a new record along the way.

Other examples could be supplied as well, since this is becoming more and more common.

How is This Fair?

How is this fair? How can progressives and liberals and leftists and LGBT activists and their allies think this is right? And do the feminists of the world really want to engage in head-to-head athletic competition with their male peers?

If this was done in the world of professional sports, there would not be a single woman winning, let alone playing at the elite, highest levels.

Not one female basketball player would earn a berth in the NBA. Not one female athlete would make it to the Olympics — in swimming or rowing or weightlifting or skiing or running or jumping or hurdling or boxing. Not one.

Men would dominate in every event, and women would be relegated to cheerleading.

That’s why we have men’s sports and women’s sports, men’s world records and women’s world records. And that why we celebrate the accomplishments of female athletes as females rather than comparing them to males.

There is nothing sexist about this. There is nothing hateful about this. There is nothing condescending about this. This is a matter of fairness, equality and common sense.

At least it should be. Today, common sense is in danger of extinction, and concepts like fairness and equality are turned upside down.

Beat by a Boy

The 15-year-old in question goes by the name of Andraya Yearwood, and as the Hartford Courant reported, Andraya’s first event with female peers was a cause for celebration:

With family, friends and teammates cheering her on at her first high school track meet, Andraya won the girls 100- and 200-meter dashes, and helped her 4×100-meter relay team take second place.

What did this look like in person? One picture says it all, as Andraya leaves the other girls behind, girls who trained so hard for these events, only to be beaten by a boy. And I mean beaten decisively.

But Andraya’s mother had a response to anyone would protest the event:

I know they’ll say it is unfair and not right, but my counter to that is: Why not? She is competing and practicing and giving her all and performing and excelling based on her skills. Let that be enough. Let her do that, and be proud of that.

What kind of logic is that? Because this 15-year-old biological male is competing and practicing and giving his all, that makes it fair and right for him to compete with his female peers? No matter what these other girls do, no matter how hard they try, no matter how much they push themselves, they will not be able to keep up with an equally devoted male peer. How is this fair and right to them?

Andraya’s father is also supportive, saying that his son is competing just where he should be competing, also explaining that you are born into a particular body but you grow into being a particular person.

But athletic events are conducted in the body, regardless of how the person inside that body identifies. Yet when people ask Mr. Yearwood, “Why is your daughter running with the girls?”, his response is, “Because she’s my daughter, much like the reason your daughter is running with girls.”

Not Like the Other Girls

With all respect to the Yearwood family, and with understanding that for them, this was a matter of life and death for their child, what Mr. Yearwood is saying is patently false. His child is not running with the other girls the same way the other daughters are running, just like his child does not have to deal with monthly periods or female hormonal changes, since Andraya is not like the other girls.

“But,” you ask, “what about Andraya? What if Andraya has gender dysphoria? What if identifying as female will save her life?”

That is between Andraya and his family and the Lord. But Andraya’s personal struggles cannot be imposed on everyone else, meaning, as a biological male, he has no business competing with other girls, or, for that matter, sharing their locker rooms and shower stalls. That is not the meaning of equality.

Even according to activist ideology, gender is a social construct but sex is biological. And when it comes to male and female athletic competition, we divide based on biological sex.

The Inevitable Trajectory of LBGT Activism

In the end, this is just one more example of why I believe LGBT activism will ultimately defeat itself.

You cannot wage a winning war against gender distinctions any more than you can redefine marriage while preserving its integrity. As expressed by Joy Pullmann,

It’s a pretty sure bet Americans did not expect tolerance for two consenting adults doing whatever behind closed doors to become a spearhead for forcing naked boys to shower next to naked girls and make girls second-class players on their own fields.

Exactly.

And so, I appeal to progressivists, leftists, feminists, and LGBT allies and their allies, along with all those who cherish fairness, equality, and justice. Look carefully at the trajectory of your activism, and ask yourself: Is this really the kind of world that you want? (For more from the author of “A Question for Leftists and Progressives: Is This What You Mean by ‘Equality’?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Lets Iran off the Hook … For Now

/0 Comments/in , /by

By certifying Tehran’s compliance in the Iran nuclear deal for at least the next 90 days, President Trump is sending mixed messages about an agreement he famously called the “worst deal ever.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sent a letter to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Tuesday confirming that the Trump administration will continue to abide by the agreement made by the Obama administration with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror.

“The U.S. Department of State certified to U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan today that Iran is compliant through April 18th with its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” the letter read.

Tillerson also “raised concerns about Iran’s role as a state sponsor of terrorism and alerted Congress to an effort directed by the President to evaluate whether continuing to lift sanctions would be in U.S. national security interests,” a press statement said.

Additionally, President Trump has directed the National Security Council to review whether the deal is “vital to the national security interests of the United States.”

Dealing with Iran comes with its downsides. The country remains a vital threat to global security.

Iran’s worldwide terror scheme involves arming and support of Palestinian terrorist outfits such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The regime also utilizes its proxy terror group Hezbollah to disrupt order and kill innocents in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. Hezbollah also participates in the global drug trade in order to boost relationships with western drug cartels and help fund the caliphatist endeavors of Tehran. Iran also funds and arms countless militias and jihadist outfits in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere.

Additionally, the Institute for Science and International Security, which has been very skeptical about the Iran deal, has urged caution on moving forward with judgement on the president’s decision. They say that certification should be seen as a “tactical decision” to buy more time for a further review.

During his campaign for the presidency, Trump described the deal as the “worst deal ever negotiated.” He has used strong language in speaking out against the deal.

The president has the authority to unilaterally end the Iran deal, but he has instead chosen to give the Mullahs 90 more days. The Iran deal is not legally binding and can be dismissed immediately. Why the president has so radically changed from his initial anti-Iran deal platform remains a mystery unsolved, as the president has consistently spoken out publicly against the deal.

It remains unclear how the Trump administration will be able to wholly certify Iran’s compliance. A similar process failed to reveal that Syria kept stockpiles of chemical weapons. Much of the review process relies upon outside agencies, such as the United Nations and Russia, to confirm compliance. (For more from the author of “Trump Lets Iran off the Hook … For Now” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Photo of Soldier Raising Cross on Rubble of Mt. Sinjar Church Easter Sunday Goes Viral

/0 Comments/in , /by

Once Iraq’s largest Christian city, Sinjar is perhaps best known as the place where ISIS massacred more than 5,000 Yazidi men and captured 7,000 women for sex slaves in November, 2014. ISIS destroyed churches, buildings and homes. The city was left as a wasteland. But on Easter Sunday, one soldier put Sinjar back on the map with a simple act that went viral on Facebook.

An anonymous soldier carried a wooden cross to the top of what once was Mt. Sinjar Church. He lifted it into place on top of the rubble. His act of faith was captured by a camera and posted on Facebook by Hazem Farraj, a Palestinian-American Christian televangelist. Above the photos, Farraj wrote:

With a rifle on his shoulder, tears in his eyes, he places the cross on the top of the now ISIS destroyed Mt Sinjar Church. What does resurrection look like? This. Happy Easter everybody. #Resurrection #Jesus

The images were re-posted by actor James Woods and other media personalities. As of Wednesday, the post has over 24,000 likes and almost 14,000 retweets.

(For more from the author of “Photo of Soldier Raising Cross on Rubble of Mt. Sinjar Church Easter Sunday Goes Viral” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Poll Says Cruz Could Lose in 2018? Not So Fast

/0 Comments/in , /by

Don’t freak out at a new poll showing Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, losing to a potential Democratic challenger. At least, don’t freak out yet.

The statewide poll conducted by Texas Lyceum shows Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, with 35 percent support from Texas adults polled. Sen. Cruz receives 31 percent in the theoretical head-to-head matchup. Joaquin Castro is the twin brother of Julian Castro, President Obama’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development — who was widely viewed as a potential vice-presidential candidate for Hillary Clinton. The Castro brothers, if you will, are rising stars among the radical Left.

Rep. Castro has not yet declared his candidacy for U.S Senate. He is, however, traveling the state in a “call to action” tour prelude to his official declaration, which KRISTV reports is expected at the end of this month.

A matchup between Cruz and declared candidate Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, shows a 30 percent tie.

Now there are a few important caveats to this poll. 37 percent of registered Texas voters said haven’t given any thought to the 2018 election. What this means is “Don’t know” actually lead the poll — which is why you shouldn’t freak out if you want to see Sen. Cruz reelected.

“Ballot tests conducted this far in advance of an actual election are, at best, useful in gauging the potential weaknesses of incumbents seeking re-election,” said poll conductor Dr. Daron Shaw, a Lyceum Alumnus and Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “But the substantial percentage of undecided respondents—coupled with the conservative, pro-Republican proclivities of the Texas electorate in recent years— suggest a cautious interpretation.”

The last Texas Democrat to win a U.S. Senate seat was Lloyd Bentsen, and that election was in 1988 — 29 years ago. In 2012, Senator Cruz crushed his Democratic opponent by over one million votes, winning 56.4 percent to 40.1 percent.

It is difficult to imagine a situation where Sen. Cruz loses to a Democratic challenger. But the Texas senator is not taking anything for granted. In fact, he is warning his fellow Republicans that failure to keep their campaign promises could put a Democrat in the White House and wipe out Republican majorities in Congress.

“If we screw all this up, you better believe the American people could elect President Elizabeth Warren,” Cruz said of Republican promises. “If we deliver on all this,” it doesn’t matter who they nominate — we win.”

Those comments echo what Cruz said shortly after President Trump won election.

“If we’re given the White House and both houses of Congress and we don’t deliver, I think there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets,” Cruz said last November. “And I think quite rightly. I think people are so fed up with Washington, this election was a mandate with change and the most catastrophic thing Republicans could do is go back to business as usual.” (For more from the author of “New Poll Says Cruz Could Lose in 2018? Not So Fast” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Addicted to the Swamp: Markwayne Mullin Mulling a Violation of Term-Limit Pledge

/0 Comments/in , /by

Remember the Oklahoma congressman who told a group of constituents it’s “bullcrap” to suggest that taxpayers pay his salary? Well, he is evidently so addicted to power that he is now entertaining the idea of breaking his pledge to serve only three terms.

In 2012, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) ran as the ultimate outsider, a hometown boy who would stick it to the elites. He also pledged to serve no more than six years. However, like most Republican politicians who lack a core conservative foundation, Mullin quickly became addicted to the leadership table and the establishment elites. Instead of fighting the liberal leaders in both parties, Mullin became a conduit for leadership, offering excuses back home in his district for every betrayal on the major legislative and budget battles. He is very proud of being a member of the Ryan/McCarthy/Scalise whip team.

Now, after reportedly breaking his pledge and filing to run for a fourth term, Mullin has put out a statement saying he has not made a final decision and is still “praying” about it. But if he really intended to keep his pledge, why would he file paperwork with the FEC? Another Oklahoman, Rep. Jim Bridenstine, was also elected in 2012 on a pledge to serve no more than six years, and he has not filed to run for re-election.

Why the equivocation?

In 2012, Mullin was unambiguous about his term-limit pledge: “‘I don’t want to be up there (in Washington) and become part of the problem,’ said Mullin, 34, owner and CEO of Mullin plumbing. ‘If we can’t accomplish anything in six years, it’s a waste of time anyway.’”

In 2011, Mullin rhetorically asked a radio show host, “How many times do we send politicians up there that sound great on the radio, they sound great when they are talking, but when they get there their actions don’t match it? They get lost in their fight, we will not get lost.… We’re going up there for six years…. During that six years we’re going to give it everything we got.”

Indeed, Mullin has accomplished a lot in six years. He has sided with the swamp leaders on every major issue, including backing a bill to permanently enshrine Obamacare, violating his most basic campaign promise in 2012.

To anyone who knew Mullin from day one, this is no surprise. This is a man who was caught during the 2012 campaign telling voters that single-payer was the solution to our health care crisis. It is this basic lack of foundational principles that plagues so many members; it’s just that Mullin has a double dose of the GOP duplicity disease.

Amidst a devastatingly disappointing primary season last year, one bright spot was when Jarrin Jackson, a young veteran who is deeply grounded in conservative principles, challenged Mullin and received 37 percent of the vote despite lacking funds and media attention. Jackson told me over the phone that he’s exploring another run at Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District, especially if Mullin decides to break his term-limit pledge. “America needs leaders with courage and integrity. If we fail in character, we fail in leadership. Rep. Mullin’s decision to break his word is more than dishonorable, it’s a disservice to the American people and an obstacle to making America great again,” said Jackson.

Unfortunately, Tom Coburn was the only major state Republican who had the courage to support Jackson during the 2016 primary. As always, money and name ID win the day, which is why Republicans like Mullin feel invincible enough to break a term-limit pledge. This will continue to happen until conservatives push for primary reform and restore candidate selection to the convention process that existed before the progressive era.

It’s time for conservatives to focus on primaries

Conservatives are facing a nightmare scenario. As evidenced by last night’s special congressional election in suburban Atlanta, the Democrat base is energized, Independents are trending Democrat, and Republicans are caught in the most awkward position of having all the power but accomplishing nothing. In fact, we now have the continuation of Obama’s amnesty, the continuation of the Iran deal, and the continuation of Obamacare (including the illegal subsidies), yet Democrat voters are in full rage mode, as if we are accomplishing right-wing agenda items. Hence, we are left with all the political vices of controlling government but none of the policy benefits.

While Trump and congressional Republicans are moving further left, we continue to nominate new Republicans in special elections who stand for nothing and will not align with the Freedom Caucus. We have Republicans who downright love Obamacare but still run (deceitfully) against Obamacare. At the same time, nobody has bothered to sort out this party divide during the candidate selection process of these special elections. Conservatives need to re-energize the base and recapture independent voters with a meaningful message that actually speaks to the issues of our time. While Democrats are looking toward GA-6 to recapture their momentum, conservatives should watch OK-2 carefully for game-changing momentum. We badly need an interception. (For more from the author of “Addicted to the Swamp: Markwayne Mullin Mulling a Violation of Term-Limit Pledge” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.