Movie About Obamas’ First Date Flops at Box Office in Opening Weekend

A romantic comedy about Barack Obama’s first date with his future wife opened over the weekend to unimpressive numbers.

Southside With You depicts young lawyer Obama’s outing with Michelle Robinson, a summer associate at his Chicago law firm, in 1989.

The film finished at No. 13 in the weekend box office, grossing a mere $3 million.

The low ranking came despite the promotional efforts of Southside With You‘s stars, Parker Sawyers and Tiki Sumpter, as well as executive producer John Legend.

After its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, writer and director Richard Tanne said the Obamas were “excited” about the movie, but also “a little baffled by its existence.”

The movie, which had a limited release of 813 theaters, fared relatively well in some cities.

Southside With You had its post profitable showing at the Magic Johnson theater in Harlem, N.Y.

It also drew larger audiences in Atlanta, Chicago, Memphis, Los Angeles and Washington.

Howard Cohen, co-president of Roadside Attractions, said, “We’re very happy with the opening. … We had sellouts in many markets and the movie is playing to both an African-American audience and to arthouse audiences.”

Southside With You also received mostly positive reviews.

The film has a “freshness” rating of 92 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and the site’s Critical Consensus states, “Southside With You looks back on a fateful real-life date with strong performances and engaging dialogue, adding up to a romance that makes for a pretty good date movie in its own right.”

Odie Henderson with said, “This down-to-earth approach works surprisingly well because Southside With You never loses sight of the primary tenet of a great romantic comedy: All you need is two people whom the audience wants to see get together — then you put them together.”

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone remarked, “Both Sawyers and Sumpter are terrific, world-class charmers who suggest the powerhouses they’re playing without undue mimickry.”

But The New York Times’ Manohla Dargis said Tanne “mistakes faithfulness for truthfulness. He’s obviously interested in the Obamas, but he’s so cautious and worshipful that there’s nothing here to discover, only characters to admire.”

“Mr. Obama hasn’t even left office, but the cinematic hagiography has begun,” Dargis concluded.

Despite its weak weekend at the box office, Southside With You still managed to outperform Hands of Stone, a Weinstein Co. film about professional boxer Roberto Duran, portrayed by Edgar Ramirez, and his trainer Ray Arcel, played by Robert DeNiro.

That movie opened in 810 venues and grossed $1.7 million.

The top-grossing movie of the weekend was the horror film Don’t Breathe, which opened in 3,051 theaters and grossed $26 million. (For more from the author of “Movie About Obamas’ First Date Flops at Box Office in Opening Weekend” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6763303437_1c9c904e21_b (2)

Mr. Obama Solves America’s Terrorist Shortage

America’s terrorist shortage may be reaching an end.

If Orlando didn’t satisfy you and San Bernardino left you wanting more. If you thought, why can’t we have more Boston Marathon bombings, Obama has your back, and your front and any other directions that a pressure cooker full of nails can hit you from.

This week the land of Washington, Jefferson and Mohammed Atta will reach a new milestone by taking in Syrian refugee number 10,000. It’s unknown if the TSA will shower him with balloons and confetti once he passes the gate while clutching a Koran and a copy of the Caliphate Cookbook.

Either way we hit the big explosive ten thousand. And the clock is ticking.

Media outlets are puffing out sympathetic portrayals of the oppressed Syrians moving into some neighborhood near you, and far from the bosses behind the major media outlets. All these folks fleeing the violence of their own religion want is a safe place to live. And safe inevitably means non-Islamic.

There’s an obvious lesson here that neither they nor our expertly chattering classes seem able to grasp.

But a few years from now there will be bodies and the killer will have the same last name as one of those oppressed refugees who weren’t looking to be safe, but to make us unsafe.

Indistinguishable from press releases, the stories tell us that the refugees have been thoroughly screened. Or as thoroughly as you can screen people coming from a country that we have no diplomatic relations with and major portions of which are on fire so that even if its government, which also used to sponsor global and regional terrorism as a hobby to pass the time on long summer days, was willing to cooperate with our immigration authorities, the information would be mostly useless.

How are we going to screen a Syrian or Iraqi man who claims to be from a city held by ISIS?

Are we going to phone the local ISIS office and ask the head headchopper to confirm that the fellow smiling for the camera isn’t affiliated with ISIS? Perhaps the local Jihadi Jack or Allah Akbar Abdul will regretfully inform us that they would be happy to help, but the local government office was burned down during a massacre of Christians, Yazidis and American hostages.

But there is really no doubting the fact that Obama has subjected Syrian refugees to the most thorough screening imaginable.

The most persecuted peoples in Syria are Christians and Yazidis. Obama has officially resettled 9,144 Syrians. 9,077 of them are Muslims. A mere 47 Christians and 14 Yazidis managed to slip through the nets of his careful screening process.

Remember those people on television pleading to be saved from genocide and mass rape? Obama took in barely a dozen of them.

8,984 of the poor oppressed refugees are members of the genocidal Sunni Islamic majority in Syria. That’s 98 percent.

That’s not a statistic. It’s a war crime.

A dozen from the victimized minority… and nine thousand from the genocidal majority.

When Obama talks about how thoroughly the refugees were “screened”, this is what he means. He and his people thoroughly screened out the Christians and the Yazidis. They kept out anyone who isn’t a Muslim. Christians make up 10 percent of Syria and 0.5 percent of Obama’s resettled refugees.

How is it possible that the most persecuted group in Syria is also this disadvantaged in resettlement?

Imagine a government welfare program located in a major city with a ten percent minority population whose recipients were 98.2% rich white men? Obama, the DOJ, the EOC, the FBI, the EPA and OPIARE would be burying it in lawsuits, investigations and media lynch mobs before you could whistle.

And yet the champions of disparate impact investigations who treat simple numerical discrepancies as proof of discrimination want us to believe that the 98.2% and the 0.5% are an accident of fate.

Obama, Hillary and a million media voices squawk that a “religious test” for immigration would be Un-American. But there already is a religious test. It prioritizes Muslims and excludes everyone else.

And so here we are near that big ten thousand mark.

It’s not the only milestone.

America now admits more Muslim refugees than Christian refugees worldwide. Give us your tired, poor huddled masses yearning to behead. Send us your wretched, teeming refuse eager to get on welfare and then shoot up a Florida gay nightclub or a Texas army base to maximize the diversity of their victims.

13% of Syrian refugees, supposedly fleeing ISIS, stated in a poll that they support ISIS. That’s 1,300 ISIS supporters in that big ten thousand. Along with 47 Christians and 14 Yazidis.

This is what Obama’s right side of history looks like. His moral arc of the universe is a Jihadi sword on a Christian neck.

Support among Syrians for Al Qaeda runs as high as a third. Three-quarters of Syrians, a decade ago, backed Hamas.

The Temple you blow up with a HIAS donation may be your own.

So there will be more bombings, shootings and arsons. There will be more rapes and grooming gangs. There will be more bearded men scowling at you on street corners while waving the black flag of the Jihad. And there will be more “American” youths being droned in terrorist training camps.

And, to distract from all of this, there will be more hysterical media stories trumpeting the latest petty Muslim grievance. Sorry murdered Christians and Yazidi sex slaves, you just don’t matter as much as a supposed dirty look that some Muslim somewhere received and then wrote a Facebook post about that went viral when the media reported on it. Was your wife just murdered in a Muslim terrorist attack? Here, enjoy this latest piece on how Muslims at the site of the latest terror attack fear a backlash.

Our Muslim terrorism shortage has finally been solved. The media will never have to worry that it will be deprived of being able to cover the latest act of “Nothing to do with Islam” terrorism while advocating for gun control. The Koran’s call for killing non-Muslims doesn’t kill people. Sam Colt does.

As Allah is our witness, we’ll never go a weekend without a suicide bombing again.

10,000 is just a drop in the bucket. Our entire immigration system, from top to bottom, favors Islam. That horrifying 98.2% and 0.5% contrast is only a microcosm of the way that the game is rigged.

If you are a member of ISIS, you have a better chance of reaching America than your Yazidi sex slave.

That is the simple indictment of the monstrous crime committed by the left. It is not only Obama alone who perpetrated this evil. It is every member of the left, every willing liberal who cheered the refugees who aren’t and refused to hear about the refugees who are. In the last century, they allied with Stalin. In this century, they allied with Mohammed.

The empty hearts of the bleeding hearts did not bleed for the political prisoners in gulags or the starving peasant, the Rabbi shot in the snow or the dissident tortured in a psychiatric hospital. They bled red only for their Communist killers. Today the great empathizers care nothing for the victims of Islamic terror. Their every effort is directed at bringing as much of the Sunni Muslim population responsible for ISIS, Al Qaeda and Hamas to the United States at the expense of their Christian and Yazidi victims.

The Syrian ten thousand are a crime against America and they are a crime against humanity.

Obama has left the victims of Islamic terror to rot while filling our towns and cities with its perpetrators. (For more from the author of “Mr. Obama Solves America’s Terrorist Shortage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

14726273145_319dc3e652_b (3)

Obama’s Making America Safer? Sure Thing! Just Ask These Former Gitmo Detainees

As the number of Guantanamo military detention facility detainees continues to shrink, some may wonder, “Who exactly is being released from Guantanamo, and where are they going?”

In keeping with President Obama’s agenda, the administration is continuing to forge ahead with the goal to shut down Guantanamo’s military detention facility in Cuba, and Vice President Biden said Thursday the facility would likely be terminated by the end of Obama’s term.

At the rate Obama is releasing detainees from the facility, it appears very likely he will reach his goal, and detainees will be interspersed throughout the world.

“Keeping this facility open is contrary to our values,” Obama said earlier this year. “It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law.”

But is he jeopardizing the safety of Americans?

Since Obama took office in 2009, he has released 177 detainees — 46 in this year alone. Many of these are from Yemen and connected to al Qaeda in some way.

One of the conditions that must be met to release a detainee is that the individual no longer poses a threat to the U.S., its interests, or its allies. Sounds legit. However, the screening process for this is not 100 percent fool-proof.

Just last month, Congress raised concerns about the process for transferring detainees, due to the fact Obama administration officials could not track some of the detainees and who may still be dangerous to the U.S.

After a prisoner affiliated with al Qaeda was released to Uruguay, he disappeared in June. Previously, Congress had been told that Uruguay was an acceptable location to release detainees. But in actuality, Uruguay doesn’t view detainees as former terrorists, but rather as “refugees.” As a result, the Uruguayan government doesn’t restrict their travel or check up on them.

Furthermore, the Obama administration earlier this month released a whopping 15 detainees — the most the administration has ever released. All 15 are affiliated with al Qaeda and were sent to the United Arab Emirates.

One of those 15 Mahmoud Abd al Aziz Abd al Mujahid had knowledge of planned terrorist attacks and is listed on al Qaeda documents. Another, Mohammed Ahmad Said al Edah, was a supervisor in Osama bin Laden’s security force. And then there’s Abdel Qadir Hussein al Mudhaffari, who happened to be the former bodyguard to bin Laden.

Not only do the Department of Defense memorandums from 2008 recommended the continued detention of all 15 men, but they also listed them as “high risk” and that they were likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests, and its allies.

So with this in mind, do you feel safer with these terrorists back on the loose? (For more from the author of “Obama’s Making America Safer? Sure Thing! Just Ask These Former Gitmo Detainees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


3 Ways Obama’s New Overtime Rule Will Hurt Employees

In an alleged attempt to increase the income of certain salaried employees, the Obama administration issued a new overtime rule, set to take effect Dec. 1., that will almost certainly do more harm than good for the employees it seeks to help.

Currently, employers only have to pay the overtime time-and-a-half rate to salaried employees who make less than $23,660 per year (as well as some who make more but don’t have sufficiently advanced job duties). The new rule more than doubles the pay level subject to overtime to $47,476.

This effectively means that many salaried employees can’t be paid to get a job done, but must instead be paid based on their hours.

Beginning in December, employees who make less than $47,767 a year must keep track of their hours and their employer must pay them time-and-a-half for any work over 40 hours per week.

Seems like it could benefit employees through higher pay, right? That’s what the Obama administration thinks. It claimed the rule will increase pay by an average of $1.2 billion per year across roughly 4.2 million workers (an extra $285 per worker).

But that assumption defies the economic literature. It effectively assumes employers have an extra $1.2 billion in spare change that they can dole out to employees without consequence.

Even left-leaning economists Jared Bernstein and Ross Eisenbrey acknowledge that’s not the case. They write that additional overtime costs “would ultimately be borne by workers as employers set base wages taking expected overtime pay into account.”

Another option for keeping total costs constant is to shift employees to hourly rates.

In the end, employees are likely to lose desired job flexibility and income dependability, and will likely have no additional income (maybe even less) to show for it:

1. Lost Flexibility. In today’s more service-oriented economy, the previous eight-hour work day has become less common as employees shift hours between days and weeks, and often perform work—such as responding to emails—outside the office and outside normal business hours. This flexibility gives employees greater autonomy and a better work-family balance. If employers must keep track of their employees’ hours and pay them time-and-a-half for any work over 40 hours in a given week, employers will limit employees’ flexibility. No more staying late a few nights one week in exchange for leaving early the following week, no more working from home where hours are more difficult to track, no more logging extra hours to cover for a co-worker (who would do the same in exchange), and potentially no more—or fewer—paid vacation days.

2. Less Stable Incomes. Salaries are beneficial for employees and employers alike. Salaries provide certainty of cost for employers and certainty of income for employees, allowing both to properly budget their resources. Salaries also allow employees to be paid to get a job done as opposed to having to log a certain number of hours. Many workers log fewer than 40 hours during less busy weeks or seasons and more than 40 hours in busy periods. Because most employers can’t afford—at least not without consequence—to pay employees with variable hours their existing base salaries as well as time-and-a-half when they work more than 40 hours, they will likely shift those employees to an hourly rate that results in roughly the same income for the year. But most employees prefer a regular paycheck over variable ones. After all, their mortgage or rent and most other expenses don’t vary from month-to-month.

3. Excessive Compliance Costs Likely to Reduce Wages. The Obama administration estimated employers will spend $295 million per year complying with the new regulation. The rule is unlikely to raise average wages as employers will reduce base pay or shift employees to hourly pay. But even if the rule raises wages by the administration’s unlikely estimate of $1.2 billion per year, $295 million in compliance costs amounts to an outrageously high 25 percent administrative fee. Those compliance costs will almost certainly be passed onto employees through lower wages.

Rather than intervene in mutually advantageous salary arrangements between employers and employees, the government should let employees agree to be paid to get a job done. The Obama administration’s paternalistic approach will ultimately hurt the employees it aims to help by limiting job flexibility, reducing income certainty, and potentially reducing incomes through excessive compliance costs. (For more from the author of “3 Ways Obama’s New Overtime Rule Will Hurt Employees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


What Are Republicans Planning to Make Their End-Of-The-Year Focus? Fulfilling Obama’s Jailbreak Agenda

Republicans are often dubbed “the stupid party” because they excel at self-immolation. However, there comes a point when their ability to self-immolate at the perfect time in the most precise fashion is so devastatingly consistent that it’s hard to believe they are not geniuses.

The September congressional session is the final opportunity for Republicans to harness the platform given to them in the 2014 elections – control of both houses of Congress – and utilize it as the closing argument against Obama and Hillary headed into November. With a bleak outlook in the presidential and Senate races, Republicans must use September to change the narrative away from Donald Trump’s personality to a focus on critical issues people care about. They have the FY 2017 budget bill as the perfect vehicle to challenge Obama on his outrageous and dangerous policies, which are opposed by the vast majority of voters.

The opportunities are endless. Republicans could use legislation, floor speeches, committee hearings, and the “must-pass” budget bill to focus attention on Obama’s treasonous alliance with Iran, his plan to increase refugee-intake in October, the collapse of Obamacare, or stopping Obama’s giveaway of internet domains to an international tribunal controlled by Russia, China, and Iran.

Sadly, there are no plans to focus on those issues. What do they plan to focus on instead? Jailbreak legislation. Because, why focus on 80-20 winning issues that are critical to our national security when…you could further cement Obama’s jailbreak legacy?

You heard that right. The closing argument for Republicans this election will be to end the congressional session by consummating Obama’s #1 remaining legacy item of mass jailbreak – all at a time when crime is rising in many major cities for the first time in over two decades and most swing voters in the suburbs are generally concerned about safety and security more than ever before. Haven’t Republicans watched the disaster of California’s Prop 47, which implemented a similar scheme on a state level, and has led to record low arrests and rising crime?

Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (F, 53%) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La. (D, 64%) have spent the entire recess scoring points for Obama by ginning up support on their side for a jailbreak effort in September. Yesterday, Scalise held a meeting with dozens of congressional staffers to plot a strategy and messaging on legislation to cut sentencing for federal prisoners and grant the extremely liberal federal judges more latitude to free prisoners, a prerogative the courts have already grabbed for themselves.

According to my congressional sources familiar with the meeting, leadership aids discussed how to message jailbreak as a conservative initiative, much like they did with the Gang of Eight immigration bill. Although the details are still in flux, staff at the meeting discussed packaging a bunch of “prison reform” bills into one giant bill. Much like the Gang of Eight legislation, they plan to dangle a few conservative talking points embodied in some notional provisions conservatives might like in order to sell the broader pro-criminal tenor of the package as an all-or-nothing proposition. Using the same Orwellian approach of Mark Zuckerberg to allure conservatives into backing amnesty, leadership staff showed a power point presentation selling the effort as being pro law enforcement, enhancing public safety, and supporting victims of crime.

[Several months ago, I published a report debunking all of the “conservative” talking points in support of this effort, which can be viewed here. Also, my analysis about the details of the original Senate bill can be viewed here.]

As always, the political barometer of these people was as uncalibrated as Dick Morris’s political predictions. They evidently feel that suburban voters are about to march on Washington and demand: “give us looser sentencing and prison reform or give us death!” One of the staffers at the meeting fantasized how election-year politics—particularly the impact that passing criminal justice ‘reform’ will have on “independents and folks like that”—will somehow benefit Republicans in the election.

At one point the staff indicated that the Chairman’s bill is actually a step in the right direction for fighting drug trafficking because of the heroin/fentanyl provisions—regardless of the fact that the bill reduces penalties for all heroin traffickers across the board and makes them retroactive. Also, according to my sources, there was no discussion of the fact that their legislation reduces sentences for illegal alien drug traffickers, lets them out early and does nothing to ensure they’re deported.

During a discussion about the number of federal felons who would be released, staffers conceded that “we don’t know exactly how many offenders are eligible” under the House Judiciary Committee bill. This, at a time when Obama is already commuting a record number of sentences and the U.S. Sentencing Commission is already planning early release for up to 46,000 drug traffickers. To begin with, there are only 165,000 prisoners actually housed in federal prisons (roughly 40,000 more are federal inmates in other facilities), and only about half of those were convicted for drug offenses. Further, a large percentage of them are illegal aliens and should be deported. For Congress to exacerbate this with further legislation at this time in history defies common sense.

So where is this emergency coming from? What happened to the emergency over America’s sovereignty, security, refugees, Obamacare, and Iran?

Follow the money. When George Soros and the Koch brothers both want the same thing, you better believe the liberal politicians in both parties will move heaven and earth to get it done. According to recently leaked documents by WikiLeaks, Soros’s Open Society Foundation “remains among the largest contributors of philanthropic dollars to reform strategies specifically targeted to reducing incarceration.” The documents reveal that Soros was concerned the story about Wendell Callahan, who twice benefited from changes in federal sentencing guidelines and upon his release murdered three people in Columbus, would hurt their PR effort.

They also named the Koch brothers as a big backer of the effort. The Koch brothers have gone full-throated Obama for the pro-criminal agenda.

This is just one more example of why the Republican Party is broken on such a systemic level that there is no way to fix it through conventional means. Instead of using all of their political capital to fight the other side’s agenda with equal and opposing force, they use their resources to give voice and cover for some of the worst and most unpopular policies of the Left…in the middle of a big election. Heck, with the party nominee now backing amnesty, they should just spend September passing the Gang of Eight bill.

Once the dust has settled from this election on November 9, it will become abundantly clear that conservatives must look beyond the Republican Party once and for all. (For more from the author of “What Are Republicans Planning to Make Their End-Of-The-Year Focus? Fulfilling Obama’s Jailbreak Agenda” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

16047251189_606aec0bec_b (6)

AWKWARD! Remember All Those Times Obama Blasted Our ‘Rigged’ System

For several weeks, Donald Trump has been warning that the 2016 presidential elections could be “rigged.” Despite significant criticism from some Republicans and many Democrats, he continued that line of attack in his first major ad release of the general election.

The “rigged” claim is common on both sides of the aisle — and sometimes it’s even accurate, like the e-mail scandal that proved the Democratic National Committee intentionally set up the Democratic presidential primary for Hillary Clinton. Likewise, President Barack Obama may have won re-election in 2012 thanks to his IRS’ targeting of Tea Party activists.

Democrats used similar terms language quite judiciously after the 2000 election, and apparently in the mind of Secretary of State John Kerry, he lost the 2004 election thanks to voter fraud.

Whether Trump is serious about his rigging claim or not, it’s certainly a valid concern in light his opponent’s e-mail scandals and Clinton Foundation donor questions. Most people would be in jail but Clinton is well on her way to victory in November, helped by Obama himself.

Indeed, according to Obama, on August 4 that Trump’s claims about a “rigged” 2016 election, especially in Pennsylvania, are “ridiculous.”

“If Mr Trump is suggesting a conspiracy theory that is being propagated across the country … that’s ridiculous,” the president said. “It doesn’t make sense and I don’t think anyone would take that seriously.”

The New York Times apparently agrees, as does a prominent Vanity Fair writer and several other leading voices. They’ve all declared cries of rigged elections to be outside the bounds of decent speech.

But that wasn’t the case when it was convenient for the current resident of the White House. As highlighted in a neat montage by Grabien, the same man who describes rigging of an election to be “ridiculous” once decried advantages given to a special few with regards to income and power in politics. Obama also decried “massive campaign checks,” people being “pushed away from participating in our system,” and more.

Perhaps the greatest example of Obama’s hypocrisy is his attack on the U.S. Supreme Court at the 2010 State of the Union address. Obama warned that “foreign enemies” might be able to buy domestic influence — ironically some of the same concerns conservatives have today as Saudi Arabia and other nations have contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Six-and-a-half years ago, Obama was concerned about corruption in politics caused by money. Yet today, he considers such concerns to be inappropriate. To quote his former adviser David Axelrod in the Grabien clip, “the delegitimization of our institutions” by Trump is “dangerous.”

But sometimes institutions need to be attacked. Axelrod said “it is a very irresponsible thing to” delegitimize “the investigative justice system,” but what are self-serving candidates and actual patriots supposed to do when the FBI allows Clinton to skate free, possibly right into the White House?

In reality, the solution to concerns by Trump today and 2010’s Obama is the same: Reduce the power of politics and politicians.

As Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) pointed out two years ago, so-called “campaign finance reform” is a big weapon that both parties use to help their allies and to keep themselves in power. And right now, that’s what our system of politics incentivizes — politicians getting re-elected, and corporations, unions, and others using re-election to grease the proverbial skids.

If both parties were serious about really reducing the rigging of power, they would keep the U.S. federal government within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.

Once this happens, what incentive is there to buy an election? The politicians cannot help the special interests, and the politicians themselves would find far less value in elected office.

Is the system rigged against the non-rich? Yup. But that’s mostly thanks to bipartisan liberal policies like bank bailouts, auto bailouts, tax loopholes, corporate subsidies, and special interests like the pre-2015 Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “AWKWARD! Remember All Those Times Obama Blasted Our ‘Rigged’ System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

barack-obama-45-110661297801680sCW (1)

Obama Readies One Last Push for Trans-Pacific Partnership

His successor, whether Democrat or Republican, opposes it, as does most of his party. Delegates at the Democratic National Convention waved signs saying “T.P.P.” slashed by a bold line, while the Republican Party platform opposed any vote on it in Congress this year.

Yet President Obama is readying one final push for approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the largest regional trade agreement ever, between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations. And though the odds may be long, a presidency defined by partisan stalemate may yet secure one last legacy — only because of Mr. Obama’s delicate alliance with the Republicans who control Congress.

“Both parties have candidates who have very strong rhetoric against trade,” said Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for trade. “Nonetheless, we can’t grow America’s economy unless we’re not merely buying American but selling American all throughout the globe.” (Read more from “Obama Readies One Last Push for Trans-Pacific Partnership” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Easy Answer to Why Obama Hasn’t Been to Louisiana or Milwaukee

It would be easy to spend an entire day comparing the media coverage of President Obama’s lack of interest in Louisiana during a natural disaster with their coverage of President Bush and the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Rob Eno reminded everybody of Bush’s response: He was there right away to survey the damage, and coordinate responses between state and local authorities. President Obama, on the other hand, has hardly put down his golf clubs while vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard last week.

And why should he, right? He’s not running for re-election so his attitude is, “Who cares?”

It may sound harsh, but what other reason could there be? The president has issued nary a statement on the events surrounding Louisiana, other than having the Justice Department release 16 pages of guidelines warning recipients of federal disaster assistance to not engage in discrimination.

The Red Cross says the flooding in Louisiana is the worst natural disaster in the U.S. since Hurricane Sandy. Ironically, President Obama’s reaction to that disaster, which happened during a tough re-election campaign in 2012, was far different.

The president made his first statement about Hurricane Sandy on October 29, the same day it first hit New Jersey. Two days later, President Obama landed in Atlantic City Airport and hopped on a helicopter with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to survey the damage. Gov. Christie still hasn’t been able to escape the infamous Christie/Obama hug that showed a solemn Obama looking … presidential.

It allowed for a narrative to be crafted. While there was a mutual unwritten agreement between President Obama and Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, to stop campaigning, Obama’s “presidential” tour of the storm-ravaged areas of New Jersey was his opportunity to campaign without actually campaigning. (For the record, Obama didn’t visit New York, which also suffered massive damage, until after the election.)

Hurricane Sandy was Obama’s “October surprise.” It allowed him to project a measure of leadership and calm that a president needs during a time of crisis. It is debatable as to whether or not it sealed the election for him as some have argued, but it certainly helped.

Yet four years later, there is a crisis in Louisiana, and Obama is nowhere to be found. The president has finally scheduled a visit to the state this Tuesday. After his vacation ends. What a sport. Regardless of what a president can or cannot do personally is irrelevant to the fact that people are encouraged when they believe their political leaders are looking out for them. In such times, party affiliation does not matter. Yet President Obama is more concerned with golfing, shopping, and going to the beach than cutting his trip short to visit a bunch of yokels in the red state of Louisiana.

It’s been a similar situation in Milwaukee. Obama relishes getting in front of the camera to wax poetic about “disparities” related to crime and interactions with police when there’s some political gain to be had or when he can inflame tensions between Americans even more than they already are. The police shooting in in Milwaukee sparked two days of violent riots, but the president didn’t say a word. Why? Three reasons:

1. The victim, Sylville Smith, was armed with a stolen gun. He has a misdemeanor conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.

2. According to “witnesses,” Smith was shot in the back. The medical examiner, however, says Smith was shot in the arm and chest.

3. The officer who shot Smith, Dominique Heaggan, is also black and was wearing a body camera.

There simply is no political hay to be made from this shooting. That has undoubtedly contributed to President Obama’s silence on the matter.

Political opportunism and narcissism are hallmark traits of President Obama’s tenure. Now that he is five months away from leaving office, it’s safe to say his “leadership” will be non-existent unless it helps to serve him in some manner. (For more from the author of “The Easy Answer to Why Obama Hasn’t Been to Louisiana or Milwaukee” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

1341978643_5013444b1c_b (1)

DESTROYER-IN-CHIEF: Obama Finally Admits He “Accidentally” Shredded U.S. Healthcare

Hillary Clinton is telling voters she wants “to build on” Obamacare. But President Obama’s signature healthcare law remains highly unpopular because many Americans believe it’s not a good deal for them personally.

The president essentially laid out a case for his own law’s failures in an article he wrote for the Journal of the American Medical Association.

He wrote: “too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles, or pay their monthly insurance bills; struggle to navigate a complex, sometimes bewildering system; and remain uninsured.”

It was a striking concession. It also shows that the president still has no idea how much damage he’s done to Americans’ healthcare:

1. “too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions…” Drug costs have risen dramatically over the past few years. According to a report last fall from Emory University, the people insured through Obamacare are hit especially hard. Out-of-pocket expenses for medications in a typical Obamacare silver plan are twice as high as they are in the average employer-sponsored plan.

Obamacare insurance also tends to have more restrictions on the doctors patients can see. People may try to get an appointment with their family doctor, only to be told, “Sorry, we don’t take Obamacare.” They can get hit with a huge bill for a routine office visit that’s now “out-of-network.”

2. “cover their deductibles…” In a recent poll, two-thirds of Americans said they would have trouble coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency. The average silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges this year has a deductible of more than $3,000. Some Obamacare plans next year will have deductibles as high as $7,000.

If you have to switch insurance in the middle of the year, you could find that you have already paid thousands of dollars toward your deductible, only to have to start over again with a new insurer. This is the situation facing 72,000 people in Illinois and Ohio whose taxpayer-supported health insurance co-ops collapsed over the past few months.

Similarly, you may have to find new doctors or hospitals where your new Obamacare insurance is accepted.

3. “pay their monthly insurance bills…” Even President Obama hasn’t been able to ignore the headlines about skyrocketing premiums. Insurers across the country expect to raise their prices an average of 23 percent next year.

The Obama administration predicts that health spending in America will reach a record high of more than $10,000 per person this year. Under Obamacare, millions of people are paying more of this cost themselves.

4. “struggle to navigate a complex, sometimes bewildering system…” America’s healthcare system was complicated before Obamacare. The healthcare law took that complexity to a new level. The law was more than 2,000 pages long. Rules and regulations associated with it run to about 30,000 pages.

Ever since the failed launch of in 2013, the annual ritual of signing up for Obamacare has been a nightmare. Families often have no idea if their doctor will accept their insurance from one year to the next. They also have new paperwork to fill out for the IRS.

The administration also recommends you do hours of research every fall and to switch plans and possibly doctors.

5. “and remain uninsured.” President Obama could have said from the start that the law’s only real goal was to cover people who didn’t have health insurance. He could have admitted that doing this would create more chaos, higher costs and worse care for American families.

The law still would have fallen short. About 29 million people in America still don’t have insurance. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that 21 million people would enroll in coverage through the Obamacare exchanges this year. The number is actually 11 million.

President Obama has finally acknowledged some of the ways his law is failing the American people. Hillary Clinton and Democrats in Washington continue to promise that they can fix Obamacare if we just allow them to make it bigger, costlier and more complex.

That’s simply not going to work. The only way to fix Obamacare is to end it and replace it with patient-centered care. (For more from the author of “DESTROYER-IN-CHIEF: Obama Finally Admits He “Accidentally” Shredded U.S. Healthcare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

2227111521_c752005a2a_b (4)

Obama’s Harsh Words for George W. Bush Come Back to Haunt Him

Despite massive flooding in Louisiana that has killed 13 people and left thousands homeless, President Obama has continued to enjoy a vacation at Martha’s Vineyard rather than cutting it short to tour the damage and lend support to those in need.

Sitting U.S. presidents have historically responded when disasters strike the homeland, and failing to do so quickly has drawn harsh criticisms for some of them, both from the media and rival politicians.

When President George W. Bush waited two days before cutting his vacation short to tour the damage from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, he was portrayed as uncaring and inept.

One of the president’s fiercest critics was Sen. Barack Obama.

The Washington Examiner detailed Thursday how in 2005, Obama slammed Bush for his response after Katrina ripped through New Orleans, leaving thousands stranded in high waters.

“I can say from personal experience over the last week, how frustrating it has been, how unconscionable it has been to be unable to find somebody in charge so that we can get medical supplies, doctors, nurses and other supplies down to the affected areas quickly enough,” the senator said.

“We’re going to have to do some hard thinking about how we could have failed our fellow citizens so badly, and how we will prevent such failures from ever occurring again,” Obama declared.

Three years later, when Obama was campaigning for president, he said, “Because when the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast extended their hand for help, help was not there. When people looked up from the rooftops, for too long, they saw an empty sky. When the winds blew and the floodwaters came, we learned that for all of our wealth and our power, something wasn’t right with America.”

He continued to decry “a president who only saw the people from the window of an airplane, instead of down here on the ground trying to provide comfort and aid.”

The media coverage of Obama’s vacation also differs greatly from what Bush faced after Katrina.

Fox News noted Thursday that Bush was “torn to shreds in 2005 by mainstream media commentators for his initial response to Hurricane Katrina – yet President Obama’s detached response to the recent Louisiana floods has been met with resounding silence from those same outlets.”

The report said that media coverage at the time “not only criticized Bush for the difficulties the federal government faced in responding to the disaster, but also lambasted him for taking too long to return from vacation and to visit the site on the ground.”

Fox pointed to a 2005 news analysis in USA Today that declared, “President Bush has shown that he can be empathetic, sensitive and decisive. But those qualities eluded him for days after Hurricane Katrina, and the lapse could become a defining moment of his White House tenure.”

The Washington Post also railed against Bush’s Katrina response, calling it the second-worst moment of his presidency.

“Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the last straw for Bush’s second term, with his widely criticized handling of the recovery pretty much precluding him from any kind of success in his final years in office,” the Post wrote.

Fox noted that “such concerns have been almost entirely absent from media coverage of the Louisiana floods in recent days.”

One media outlet that has had strong words for Obama is the Advocate newspaper in Baton Rouge, site of some of the worst flooding.

In an editorial Wednesday, it urged the president to cut short his vacation at “a playground for the posh and well-connected” and instead visit “the most anguished state in the union.”

The Advocate said that “a disaster this big begs for the personal presence of the president at ground zero. In coming here, the president can decisively demonstrate that Louisiana’s recovery is a priority for his administration – and the United States of America.” (For more from the author of “Obama’s Harsh Words for George W. Bush Come Back to Haunt Him” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.