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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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 RogerEbert.com 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.

TV Star Dies in Plane Crash – ‘Tragic Loss’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The world of reality television just suffered a tragic loss.

Darrell Ward, one of the stars of History Channel’s Ice Road Truckers, was killed Sunday when his plane crashed en route from Dallas to Missoula, Mont.

Ward had attended the Great American Truck Show in Dallas over the weekend.

Ironically, 52-year-old Ward was scheduled to begin filming a documentary on what goes into recovering a plane crash.

In a statement to Fox 411, a spokesman for Ice Road Truckers said, “We are saddened by the tragic loss of Darrell Ward, a beloved member of the HISTORY family. He will be greatly missed and our thoughts are with his family during this difficult time.”

A press release was posted on Ward’s social media page, where many people went to pay their respects.

One fan wrote: “My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Darrell’s. Loved watching him on The Ice Road Truckers. He will be missed by all!!!”

Another posted: “We are stunned and saddened by this tragic loss, our thoughts and prayers go to his family. May the good lord wrap his loving arms around you and comfort you as well as to give you the strength and courage to get thru this.”

Witnesses of the crash stated the plane went into a stall and the pilot was unsuccessful in his attempt to gain control.

The Cessna 182 was making an approach to an airstrip in Rock Creek, Mont., and crashed onto the shoulder of Interstate 90.

The accident killed Ward and another person aboard the plane.

The incident is being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Ward’s family reportedly released a short statement: “While many of you will share in this loss, we ask that you respect the family’s privacy during their time of grief. His manager and best friend M. Bob Stanton and long time friend Chuck Campbell are expected to make a lengthier statement shortly.”

Ward, who described himself as an “adrenaline junkie,” was true to his motto: “Any road, any load.”

Ice Road Truckers chronicles the often dangerous lives of the people who haul cargo to remote areas. (For more from the author of “TV Star Dies in Plane Crash – ‘Tragic Loss'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Gun Ownership, Concealed-Carry Permits up Among Women and Minorities

/0 Comments/in , /by

Antonia Okafor, a Dallas resident, says she believes a gun can be the great equalizer for women to defend themselves—one reason she is now the southwest regional director for a group called Students for Concealed Carry.

State laws allowing residents to carry concealed weapons have been enacted in all 50 states, with varying degrees of regulation—most recently on college campuses.

“We see ourselves as doing this as a means of empowerment,” Okafor, 26, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Real feminism is about empowerment and taking our safety into our own hands.”

Okafor, who is black, said more female role models, such as Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode, have inspired more gun ownership among women.

But Okafor—a graduate of the University of Texas at Dallas, where she became involved in the movement—said her mother is opposed to guns.

In an April poll by ABC News of issues millennial women are most concerned about, gun rights scored even with equal pay and abortion, each getting 11 percent.

A study by the Crime Prevention Research Center earlier this month found concealed-carry permits have boomed nationally, but particularly among women and minorities. “In eight states where we have data by gender, since 2012 the number of permits has increased by 161 percent for women and by 85 percent for men,” the report says.

From 2007 through 2015, concealed-carry permits issued by state and local governments increased about 75 percent faster among nonwhites than whites, according to the report.

Okafor noted that those living in the inner city “are the most likely to benefit” from self-defense.

“A lot of minority homes didn’t have father figures growing up,” Okafor told The Daily Signal. “The right to bear arms is a way to protect our community. Every weekend people are dying in cities riddled with gun control.”

Okafor said increasing gun ownership could mark a political shift among both women and minorities away from pro-gun control Democrats to pro-gun rights Republicans in the longer term.

However, JaQuan Taylor, a senior at Georgia Tech, is a Democrat and president of the college group that advocates allowing students and faculty to carry concealed firearms while on campus. Taylor, who is black, said he doesn’t plan on switching parties, but he is more open now.

“It’s more challenging for me to pick a politician that wants to take away guns or prohibit them in anyway,” Taylor, 22, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “I vote for the person more than the party, but I usually vote Democrat because they are pro-education. Since I’ve gotten a gun, I’ve begun to look at Republicans.”

Taylor said he joined a marksmanship club at Georgia Tech and then “became comfortable with getting a gun to protect myself.”

He said he believes as more African-Americans learn about gun laws, more are buying for self-defense.

He doesn’t see the gun issue as a left-right matter, but more of an issue of freedom, Taylor said.

“It seems like with the push for gay marriage, there is a push for freedom in all directions. That’s a good thing,” he said.

The data on women and minorities should come as no surprise, said Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott, a noted economist and author of the recent book, “The War on Guns.”

“Women benefit more from having a gun than a man because of the large strength differential between a male-to-woman attacker compared to [a] male-to-male attacker,” Lott, the author of the August study, told The Daily Signal.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group founded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, questions the research but said any increase in recent ownership is driven by fear.

“The rate of American gun ownership has been in serious decline over the last 40 years, so it’s not surprising that gun manufacturers are desperately seeking to tap into new markets and that they’re using the politics of fear to drive new sales,” Everytown for Gun Safety spokesman Andrei Berman told The Daily Signal in an email.

Lynne Roberts, the Massachusetts state coordinator for the pro-gun Second Amendment Sisters, said classes at a Braintree, Massachusetts, shooting range went from about five women per month a decade ago to 35 in the past year.

“We have to tell them to call before so we’ll have enough instructors,” Roberts told The Daily Signal. “Now we have to limit it to 26, and it always fills.”

She added that in recent years, an increasingly diverse group of women has sought to learn about guns for the first time. They include single mothers and married women, from 22 to 82, in occupations such as nurses, small-business owners, social workers, accountants, and lawyers. They travel from Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine, as well as other parts of Massachusetts.

Roberts also sees a potential political shift.

“Women are voting typically on the Democratic side because over the last two or three generations self-defense and firearms were demonized,” she said. “Women were told they can’t take care of themselves. That’s changing.”

Responsible gun ownership does not represent a political shift, said Brendan Kelly, spokesman for the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control group.

“Owning a gun and supporting sensible laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people are not mutually exclusive,” Kelly told The Daily Signal in an email, adding:

In fact, what we know is that 90 percent of the American public, including more than 70 percent of NRA members, support expanded Brady background checks. Expanded Brady background checks are more popular with the general public now than they ever have been.

The so-called Brady bill of 1993 required gun dealers to run all purchasers through a national system for instant criminal background checks. In 2013, President Barack Obama pushed for legislation to require sales at gun shows to go through the same checks, but the measure died in the Senate even while it was controlled by Democrats.

Restricting guns isn’t the answer, said National Rifle Association spokesman Catherine Mortensen. Violent crime in cities such as Chicago is one reason why traditional Democratic constituencies are buying guns for self-defense.

“Americans have seen the government can’t always protect them—from the terrorist attack in San Bernardino to the shooting in Orlando,” Mortensen told The Daily Signal.

Mortensen added the NRA is the “oldest civil rights group” in the United States.

“We are proud to defend the right to self-defense of everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation,” Mortensen said.

Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, said he believes the increase in gun ownership and concealed carry could represent a political realignment.

Pratt recalled a friend, a college professor who was a liberal Democrat and an atheist in favor of gun control. Then, after two of the professor’s friends were robbed and murdered, he got a gun. The professor gradually became more conservative on other issues and became a Christian, Pratt said.

“Owning a gun marked the break with the tenets of liberal orthodoxy—that government can take care of me,” Pratt told The Daily Signal. “That opened the door to a broader realignment.” (For more from the author of “Gun Ownership, Concealed-Carry Permits up Among Women and Minorities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Dumbing Down of College Curriculums

/0 Comments/in , /by

Let’s concede at the outset that many students find their college years enlightening and enriching. But something is rotten in the state of academia, and it is increasingly hard not to notice.

There once was a time when employers could be reasonably certain that college graduates had a basic sense of the world and, as a minimum, could write a coherent business letter. That is simply no longer the case, as some academic leaders appear ready to admit.

Harvard’s former president, Derek Bok, mildly broke ranks with the academic cheerleaders when he noted that, for all their many benefits, colleges and universities “accomplish far less for their students than they should.” Too many graduates, he admitted, leave school with the coveted and expensive credential “without being able to write well enough to satisfy employers … [or] reason clearly or perform competently in analyzing complex, nontechnical problems.”

Bok noted that few undergraduates can understand or speak a foreign language; most never take courses in quantitative reasoning or acquire “the knowledge needed to be a reasonably informed citizen in a democracy.” Despite the massive spending on the infrastructure of higher education, he conceded, it was not at all clear that students actually learned any more than they did 50 years ago.

Indeed, a recent survey of the nation’s top-ranked public universities by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that only nine of them required an economics course for graduation; just five required a survey course in American history; and only 10 required that students take a literature course. Despite the lip service given to “multiculturalism” on campus, the study found that: “Fewer than half required even intermediate study of a foreign language.”

This knowledge deficit has been a long time coming.

By 1990, the cost of four years at an elite private college had passed the median price of a house in the United States. But a survey sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1989 found that a majority of college seniors would flunk even a basic test on Western cultural and historical literacy: 25 percent could not distinguish between the thoughts of Karl Marx and the United States Constitution (or between the words of Winston Churchill and those of Joseph Stalin), 58 percent did not know Shakespeare wrote “The Tempest,” and 42 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century.

Most seniors were unable to identify the Magna Carta, Reconstruction, or the Missouri Compromise; they were “clearly unfamiliar” with Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment,” and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”

These concerns now seem almost—quaint. The fact that college students had huge gaps in their knowledge was old news by the early 1990s. But today the question is no longer whether students have learned specific bodies of knowledge; it is whether they are learning anything at all.

In their widely cited book “Academically Adrift,” Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa concluded that 45 percent of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” during their first two years of college. More than a third (36 percent) “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning over four years of college.”

Traditionally, the authors wrote, “teaching students to think critically and communicate effectively” have been claimed as the “principal goals” of higher education. But “commitment to these skills appears more a matter of principle than practice,” Arum and Roksa found.

“An astounding proportion of students are progressing through higher education today without measurable gains in general skills,” they wrote. “While they may be acquiring subject-specific knowledge, or greater self-awareness on their journeys through college, many students are not improving their skills in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.”

But those are precisely the skills that employers increasingly expect from college graduates. A 2013 survey of employers on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 93 percent of employers say that a demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than a candidate’s undergraduate major.

More than three-quarters of the prospective employers of new college graduates said they wanted colleges to put more emphasis on such basic skills as “critical thinking, complex problem solving, written and oral communication, and applied knowledge.”

Trashing the Curriculum

So how could we spend so much for so little? The most obvious answer is that colleges and universities frankly don’t care whether students learn much of anything.

Once again, Harvard’s Bok is willing to admit that administrators have few incentives to worry about something as irrelevant as student achievement because student learning can’t be monetized and doesn’t do anything to advance academic careers. “After all,” he writes, “success in increasing student learning is seldom rewarded, and its benefits are usually hard to demonstrate, far more so than success in lifting the SAT scores of the entering class or in raising the money to build new laboratories or libraries.”

There are, of course, other factors at work. The dumbing down of elementary and secondary education has made its way to the collegiate level; too many unprepared students are admitted despite their inability to do college-level work. Nearly four out of 10 college faculty now agree with the statement “Most of the students I teach lack the basic skills for college-level work.” This inevitably contributes to the flight from teaching (few professors want to teach remedial courses) and the overall lowering of standards.

This general indifference to what, if anything, students learn is embodied in the modern curriculum that enables students to study just about anything, without necessarily learning much at all. (For more from the author of “The Dumbing Down of College Curriculums” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yes, Anthony Weiner Is a Creep, but Huma Abedin Has Ties to Radical Islam

/0 Comments/in , /by

Anthony Weiner is a creep. Everyone knows he’s a creep. No one is surprised he’s still a creep. And the fact that top Clinton aide Huma Abedin is finally separating from him is a non-story and media scapegoat that allows the bigger scandal surrounding Abedin’s ties to anti-women, pro-Islamic groups to go unnoticed by most.

The New York Post reported Sunday that Saleha Abedin, Huma’s mother, translated and edited a shockingly anti-women book published by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.

“Written by her Saudi colleague Fatima Naseef, the book explains that the stoning and lashing of adulterers, the killing of apostates, sexual submissiveness and even female genital mutilation are all permissible practices under Sharia law,” writes Paul Sperry for the Post.

The book is also permissive of marital rape and child marriage while it condemns women in positions of authority in the workplace and laws that promote equal treatment for both genders. In the realm of equal rights, women are allowed, however, to “participate in fighting when jihad becomes an individual duty.”

Now, lest you think that Saleha Abedin edited the book without endorsing the contents, think again:

On the back cover, Saleha says she is “pleased to launch” the book as part of a series on the study of women’s rights in Islam sponsored by the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), for which she is listed as chairperson.

Founded by Huma’s mom, the Cairo-based IICWC has advocated for the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era laws in favor of implementing Sharia law, which could allow female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape.

“Saleha is paid by the Saudi government to advocate and spread Sharia in non-Muslim countries like America,” concludes Sperry. He goes on to show how, as secretary of state, “women’s rights champ” Hillary Clinton traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2010 to speak at a girls school founded and managed by mother Abedin. The trip was arranged by Clinton’s right-hand woman, Huma:

While there, Clinton formed a partnership with Saleha’s Dar al-Hekma college called the US-Saudi Women’s Forum on Social Entrepreneurship, and promised to reverse post-9/11 curbs on Saudi student visas to America.

The next year, Clinton invited Saleha and the president of the Saudi school to Washington to participate in a State Department colloquium on women, as revealed by internal emails released in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Will anyone in the mainstream media confront the Democratic presidential candidate and question her about her ties to a hateful and oppressive ideology? Or will the play-by-play of Huma Abedin’s marital problems garner an eternity of media attention as Hillary Clinton coasts to November without mainstream media scrutiny? (For more from the author of “Yes, Anthony Weiner Is a Creep, but Huma Abedin Has Ties to Radical Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Patriotic NFL Players Show Colin Kaepernick How to Properly Honor America

/0 Comments/in , /by

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has welcomed the overwhelming criticism he has received in the wake of his refusal to stand for the playing of the national anthem before NFL games.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL Media Friday night following the 49ers’ preseason loss to the Green Bay Packers. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

But there are many in the league who have condemned Kaepernick’s decision to use his First Amendment rights to disrespect the anthem, which many Americans regard as a national symbol of true American values — the sort of values Kaepernick claims to want upheld for blacks. Apparently they saw it as hypocritical. Imagine that.

The day after Colin Kaepernick’s pregame demonstration, New York Giants players and staff decided to show the quarterback how true Americans conduct themselves, standing in rigid formation ahead of their game against the New York Jets.

This photo, posted on Twitter by The Record’s Tara Sullivan, captures the team’s “pretty deliberate” act of reverence:

Giants wide receiver Victor Cruz told USA Today Saturday night why he disagreed with Kaepernick’s decision to exercise his freedom of expression by spitting in the face of the country that grants him that freedom:

“I think, personally, the flag is the flag. Regardless of how you feel about the things that are going on in America today and the things that are going on across the world with gun violence and things like that. You’ve got to respect the flag and stand up with your teammates. It’s bigger than just you, in my opinion. I think you go up there. You’re with your team, and you pledge your allegiance to the flag and the national anthem as a team, and then you go about your business, whatever your beliefs are. Colin is his own man. He decided to sit down and sit out and that’s his prerogative. But from a personal standpoint, I think you have to stand out there with your team and understand that this is a game and understand that what’s going on in the country.”

Kaepernick’s former teammate, Minnesota Vikings guard Alex Boone, was also explicit in his criticism of the quarterback.

“It’s hard for me, because my brother was a Marine, and he lost a lot of friends over there,” Boone, who played with Kaepernick for five seasons, told USA Today Sunday. “That flag obviously gives (Kaepernick) the right to do whatever he wants. I understand it. At the same time, you should have some (expletive) respect for people who served, especially people that lost their life to protect our freedom.”

Boone called his former teammate’s actions “shameful.”

Kaepernick defended his decision again Sunday, saying that “a lot of things need to change” before he feels like he can stand by his country. Perhaps he could start by changing his attitude.

(For more from the author of “Patriotic NFL Players Show Colin Kaepernick How to Properly Honor America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Says Two State Election Databases Compromised by Foreign Hackers

/0 Comments/in , /by

Foreign hackers have broken into two state election databases, according to evidence uncovered by the FBI, which is now warning election officials nationwide to enhance the security of their computer systems.

Yahoo! News reports the FBI’s Cyber Division sent out a “flash” alert indicating that the FBI received information of two separate IP addresses detected in the July 2016 compromise of a state’s Board of Election website and the August 2016 “attempted intrusion” of another state’s Board of Election system.

The FBI bulletin did not identify which states were compromised, but Yahoo! cited “sources familiar with the document” that indicated voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois were targeted by suspected foreign hackers.

In the Illinois case, officials were forced to shut down the state’s voter registration system for ten days in late July, after the hackers managed to download personal data on up to 200,000 state voters, Ken Menzel, the general counsel of the Illinois Board of Elections, said in an interview. The Arizona attack was more limited, involving malicious software that was introduced into its voter registration system but no successful exfiltration of data, a state official said.

The FBI bulletin listed eight separate IP addresses that were the sources of the two attacks and suggested that the attacks may have been linked, noting that one of the IP addresses was used in both intrusions. The bulletin implied that the bureau was looking for any signs that the attacks may have been attempting to target even more than the two states. “The FBI is requesting that states contact their Board of Elections and determine if any similar activity to their logs, both inbound and outbound, has been detected,” the alert reads. “Attempts should not be made to touch or ping the IP addresses directly.”

This news comes amid recent cyber attacks from suspected foreign actors on the Democratic National Committee and Democratic members of Congress. (For more from the author of “FBI Says Two State Election Databases Compromised by Foreign Hackers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mr. Obama Solves America’s Terrorist Shortage

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

Bad Karma for the Clintons at Last?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Hold on; we may finally be getting some fireworks in this lackluster presidential campaign — as the Clinton Foundation scandal seems to be gathering steam.

Could the Clintons finally have to face the music for their adult-lifetime of corruption? Is it possible that Hillary Clinton’s lifelong scheme to be America’s first female president could be derailed by this power couple’s wanton venality?

I’ve watched closely through the years the Clintons’ uncanny agility at hurdling real scandals and coming out almost unscathed. Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached, but what a dud that turned out to be, with Clinton rising to the figure of beloved statesman among Democrats and his accusers being painted as petty partisans.

There has been no justice, and they have made off like bandits ever since. One might argue that it’s unfair to impute Bill Clinton’s misdeeds to his wife, but it’s not a matter of imputation. Hillary Clinton has been integrally involved every step of the way — from enabler to enforcer to joint participant. Don’t ever forget her complicity, such as her leading role in destroying the train of women who dared to blow the whistle on him.

From the beginning, these two have stepped all over people (Travelgate) and mutually abused and destroyed Bill’s harassment victims. But do you remember the grating mantra of the Clinton-guarding media? “These are private matters that have nothing to do with his public life. Private conduct is irrelevant to one’s fitness for public office.”

Well, these disgraceful hacks don’t have that excuse in their arsenal of dodges this time. There is no way even a journalism school valedictorian could credibly argue that the Clinton Foundation graft didn’t directly involve the public interest.

The media and Democratic Party’s joint alibis for the Clintons through the years have puffed the Clintons up with a sense of invincibility. The couple have to believe there is nothing they could do that would bring them down.

When I first heard about the foundation’s influence peddling, I had little doubt there was truth to it, but I had no expectation that anything would come of it. In a sense, the Clintons have benefited from the plethora of charges leveled against them over the years. After a while, these allegations — no matter how credible — become just noise and are easily characterized as another chapter in a decades-long partisan witch hunt.

It’s awfully convenient for the Clintons and their liberal hatchet men to paint every scandal as a politically motivated slander, but when the media and the Democratic Party themselves always refuse to put truth above their own ideological and political interests, it’s inevitable that only Republicans would bring these charges.

But the Clinton Foundation scandal seems to be different. It is objectively true that the Clintons have become mega-millionaires since the close of Bill’s second term — and they’ve done it through exorbitant speaking fees, which, absent other consideration, couldn’t possibly benefit the payers commensurate to their payments, and bizarre contributions to their foundation by foreign interests that had unusual access to Hillary’s State Department.

Bill Clinton flippantly dismissed the suggestion of any quid pro quo, saying there is no evidence that any of the donors received anything for their donations. When asked whether there is at least an appearance of impropriety, he said, “I’m not responsible for anybody else’s perception.” It couldn’t be more fitting that he was the first postmodern president. He lent Oval Office credence to the demonic lie that words have no meaning apart from what people choose individually to assign to them. He’s unctuously transitioned from “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” to “I can’t be held accountable for your accurate perception that my wife and I are wholly corrupt and have not only used our public positions to financially profit but also compromised and damaged the nation’s interests in the process.”

Just think about the charge that Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain secured a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that led to her approval of certain extremely controversial arms sales to Bahrain after his kingdom donated up to $150,000 directly to the Clinton Foundation and some $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative. This alone would be enough to bring down a deified Roman emperor.

The Associated Press reported that more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state donated to the Clinton Foundation either individually or through related entities. Clinton apologists are already trying to tell us there’s nothing to see here, but sentient human beings know better.

No president in modern history, including Richard Nixon, has been the scandal virtuoso that both of the Clintons are in their own right. The jig just may be up.

WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange promises more email dumps that will bring Hillary Clinton down. Wouldn’t it be the profoundest poetic justice if the Clintons were done in by the very emails Hillary thought she had deep-sixed months ago? (For more from the author of “Bad Karma for the Clintons at Last?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.