Huma Dumps the Weiner

/0 Comments/in , /by

Huma Abedin has announced that she is separating from the husband, Carlos Danger. Carlos Danger was caught tweeting photos of his crotch with a child next to him. So Huma says that’s enough.

Did Huma Abedin Weiner really not know she had a deviant taking care of her child? She may not know what’s best for herself, but she apparently knows what’s best for Hillary Clinton. I mean, she’s in line, she’s chief aide now. She’s presumably gonna be Hillary’s chief of staff. But she has not been chief of her husband’s staff, obviously.

It’s interesting to note this, too. Did Hillary try to talk her into staying? Hillary didn’t do this. Hillary hung in there. But Huma has had enough. Huma has chosen Hillary over Weiner. Obviously in more ways than one.

I mean, the idea, the possibility of becoming Hillary’s chief of staff is obviously a very attractive thing, particularly when Huma has not been chief of her husband’s staff, obviously, for quite a while.

But the contrast here, no bimbo eruption unit here. Huma Abedin not arising and trying to find out who these women are texting with her husband and then trying to destroy them.

That’s Hillary’s M.O.

But Huma, I guess she just doesn’t want to deal with it, doesn’t want to put up with it. And they’re very sad in the Drive-By Media. It’s almost fly the flag at half mast day. Jeff Zeleny, CNN, just a moment ago:

ZELENY: He is more than a spouse. He is a central player, of course, to Huma Abedin, though. But one cannot understate the importance of her to the Hillary Clinton campaign. There is no one who is —

Note the tone here. It’s like somebody died.

ZELENY: — at the candidate’s right hand more often than Huma Abedin. This really is a personal matter, not a campaign matter; but it is really angering some people on the campaign I have spoken to this morning when this New York Post report came out. They were hoping that he would not embarrass this campaign, embarrass Huma. But that is what has happened here. But, you know, there are so many aides and so many people who work on a campaign; but, again, no one closer in every respect to Secretary Clinton than Huma Abedin. One can only imagine the personal conversations that Huma Abedin is having with Hillary Clinton…

I wonder if Jeff Zeleny there understands what he really just said when he says, “One can only imagine the personal conversations that” — what does Huma have in common with Hillary? What in the world could this possibly be about? It’s obvious. Horndog husbands. So they all know, they all obviously know, but Huma has chosen a different route. She’s distancing herself and separating herself. I guess she figured there’s no future in the last name being Weiner, whereas Hillary knew there was a future with the last name being Clinton. Here is Brian Stelter, the media whiz at CNN.

STELTER: It’s perplexing, it’s mystifying, and now just downright sad. People have had fun with this story, they’ve exploited this story. The New York Post, among others, certainly have. But now to have a child involved, have a child on the cover of the New York Post with his father in bed with him taking lewd photos, that is just sad.

Well, who made it possible? Didn’t Weiner make it possible?

Anyway, you can expect a lot more hand-wringing. You can expect a lot more sorrow. You can expect much sadness in the days ahead as this story continues to bounce around and reverberate through the presidential campaign. And, of course, what will it mean for Hillary, what will it mean for her campaign, and what will Trump do with it? Yes, everybody will be very, very concerned at whatever tactless, tasteless thing Trump tries to do with it, this in their point of view. (For more from the author of “Huma Dumps the Weiner” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will Next WikiLeaks Release Show Hillary Clinton Helped Arm Jihadists?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Once again last week WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange vowed that a “significant” leak affecting Hillary Clinton will be released prior to the election. On Wednesday, Assange told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that his organization is “working around the clock” to “assess the veracity” of the “thousands of pages” of material they’ve been given, and has decided to release the information in “several batches.”

He promised the materials contain “some quite unexpected angles that are, you know, quite interesting, some even entertaining.”

When asked by Kelly if the information in his possession “could be a game-changer in the U.S. election,” Assange replied, “I think it’s significant. You know, it depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media.”

In an interview late last month with Democracy Now, Assange wasn’t talking about significance or entertainment. He was talking about the slammer.

Assange boldly predicted the emails could put Hillary Clinton in prison. After she got away with tossing classified information around like leaves in autumn, one would think even multi-camera footage of her capping Jimmy Hoffa wouldn’t land her in the clink.

If what Assange revealed about this pending batch is true, however, the White House could be out of the question for Hillary even if the Big House isn’t. Assange told Democracy Now that the emails “create a rich picture” of how Hillary Clinton operated at the State Department in regards to Libya and “weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS.”

He says there’s 1,700 Clinton emails, just about Libya alone.

Writing in National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy said, “Just as in Libya, where Mrs. Clinton championed the strategy of arming Islamist ‘rebels,’ the Syrian ‘rebels’ who ultimately received weapons included the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.”

What difference, at this point, does it make? The Daily Wire recalls that at the same Benghazi hearing in 2013 where she made that now-infamous remark, then-Secretary of State Clinton told Rand Paul (R-Ky.) she didn’t have “any information” on any weapons transfer program out of Libya.

Paul: My question is, is the US involved in any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Clinton: To Turkey? I’ll have to take that question for the record. That’s, nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, that annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?

Clinton: Well, Senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And, I will see what information was available.

Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

In the 12th hour of her marathon testimony before the House Benghazi Committee in 2015, when asked point blank by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) about weapons running either to Libyan rebels or Syrian rebels, Hillary Clinton doubled-down.

Pompeo: “Were you aware, or are you aware of any efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any weapons, either directly or indirectly, or through a cutout to any militias or opposition to [former Libyan President Muammar] Gadhafi’s forces?”

Clinton: “That was a very long question, and I think the answer is no.”

Pompeo: “Were you aware or are you aware of any U.S. efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any weapons, directly or indirectly, or through a cutout, to any Syrian rebels or militias or opposition to Syrian forces?”

Clinton: “No.”

Pompeo: “Were you aware or are you aware of any efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to facilitate or support the provision of weapons to any opposition of Gadhafi’s forces, Libyan rebels or militias through a third party or country?”

Clinton: “No.”

As WJLA reported at the time, she also denied seriously considering arming opposition groups through private security experts, as she had proposed in an email to aides.

Both appearances were under oath.

In February 2016, The New York Times published a thorough expose entitled “The Libya Gamble,” which concluded that Clinton personally facilitated “a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed.” The Administration had been “turning a blind eye as Qatar and United Arab Emirates supplied the rebels with lethal assistance.” However, Hillary “had grown increasingly concerned that Qatar, in particular, was sending arms only to certain rebel factions: militias from the city of Misurata and select Islamist brigades.” She wanted in the game. The result was a disaster. In the words of The New York Times — who not even Clinton can accuse of being part of the so-called “alt-right” — “Many of the rebels the Clinton State Department armed joined Islamist causes and defected to terrorism.”

As for Syria, Amnesty International reported last December that ISIS has built up its arsenal not only with U.S. weapons “looted, captured or illicitly traded from poorly secured Iraqi military stocks” but also from the capture or sale of military stocks supplied to armed opposition groups by the U.S. and other nations. Salon detailed “how the CIA stood by as arms shipments from Libya enabled the rise of ISIS.”

The Intelligence Community (IC) knew that AQI [Al-Qaeda in Iraq] had ties to the rebels in Syria; they knew our Gulf and Turkish allies were happy to strengthen Islamic extremists in a bid to oust Assad; and CIA officers in Benghazi (at a minimum) watched as our allies armed rebels using weapons from Libya. And the IC knew that a surging AQI might lead to the collapse of Iraq.

Do the promised WikiLeaks documents prove Hillary’s efforts to overthrow secular dictators involved allowing heavy weapons into the hands of people hellbent on our destruction? Do they prove Clinton lied under oath? Do they show that the chaos she’s left in both Libya and Syria undermine her claim Donald Trump is dangerous? Do they indicate Hillary’s “extremely careless” behavior goes beyond creating a non-secure private sever?

The voting public awaits to see.

But given what’s on the record already, perhaps we won’t find Assange’s “October Surprise” all that surprising. (For more from the author of “Will Next WikiLeaks Release Show Hillary Clinton Helped Arm Jihadists?” 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.

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.

Billionaire George Soros Tries to Mastermind the Leftward Slide of Catholics

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Writing about billionaire currency speculator and international leftist moneyman George Soros is always risky. Just coolly describing who the man is and what he does can make a writer sound like a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Soros is an obscenely successful capitalist who wants to destroy capitalism; a Jewish Holocaust survivor who funds Israel’s harshest, most unjust critics; an irreligious Hungarian citizen who wants to manipulate churches in America.

Just a few of the organizations Soros underwrites, according to Discover the Networks, include:

Al-Haq: This NGO produces highly politicized reports, papers, books and legal analyses regarding alleged Israeli human-rights abuses committed against Palestinians.

Alliance for Justice: Best known for its activism vis a vis the appointment of federal judges, this group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “extremists.”

American Immigration Law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government.

Catholics for Choice: This nominally Catholic organization supports women’s right to abortion-on-demand.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good: This political nonprofit group is dedicated to generating support from the Catholic community for leftwing candidates, causes and legislation.

Malcolm X Grassroots Movement: This group views the U.S. as a nation replete with racism and discrimination against blacks. It seeks to establish an independent black nation in the southeastern United States, and demands reparations for slavery.

NARAL Pro-Choice America: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, and works to elect pro-abortion Democrats.

Sojourners: This evangelical Christian ministry preaches radical leftwing politics.

Soros Spent $650,000 Trying to Hijack Pope Francis’ U.S. Visit

New documents from Wikileaks reveal that Soros has tried to suborn the political sympathies of Catholics in America. To do so, he hoped to tap into Pope Francis’ perceived political and economic views, via a leftist Central American cardinal who has made harshly anti-American and anti-Semitic statements, and aligned himself with allies of Fidel Castro.

All that sounds more like an episode of NBC’s The Blacklist than a sober headline in black and white, so look at the facts for yourself. As the reliable pro-life news source LifeSiteNews has reported:

Leaked emails through WikiLeaks reveal that billionaire globalist George Soros — one of Hillary Clinton’s top donors — paid $650,000 to influence Pope Francis’ September 2015 visit to the USA with a view to “shift[ing] national paradigms and priorities in the run-up to the 2016 presidential campaign.” The funds were allocated in April 2015 and the report on their effectiveness suggests that successful achievements included, “Buy-in of individual bishops to more publicly voice support of economic and racial justice messages in order to begin to create a critical mass of bishops who are aligned with the Pope.”

The monies were granted to two US entities that have been engaged in a long-term project, according to the report, of shifting “the priorities of the US Catholic church.” Grantees were PICO, a faith-based community organizing group, and Faith in Public Life (FPL), a progressive group working in media to promote left-leaning ‘social justice’ causes. Soros has funded left-wing causes the world over and was just found to have been funding an effort to eliminate pro-life laws around the globe.

Board Minutes from the May 2015 meeting of Soros’ Open Society Foundation in New York reveal that in the planning stages of the papal visit initiative, the group planned to work through one of the Pope’s key advisors, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, naming him specifically in the report. In order to seize on the opportunity provided by the Pope’s visit to the US, says the report, “we will support PICO’s organizing activities to engage the Pope on economic and racial justice issues, including using the influence of Cardinal Rodriguez, the Pope’s senior advisor, and sending a delegation to visit the Vatican in the spring or summer to allow him to hear directly from low-income Catholics in America.”

LifeSiteNews links to a Spanish-language 2013 video in which “Cardinal Rodriguez endorsed PICO’s work … during a visit from PICO representatives to the cardinal’s diocese. ‘I want to endorse all the efforts they are doing to promote communities of faith,’ he said, ‘… Please, keep helping PICO.’”

Castro’s Cardinal?

In case you haven’t heard of Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga, he is one of Pope Francis’ chosen “Gang of Eight” tasked with fundamental reform of the governance of the Catholic Church. In October 2013, while visiting the University of Dallas, the cardinal gave a major address purporting to explain Pope Francis’ economic views, as found in the document Evangelii Gaudium. As The Catholic Thing reported, attendees might have been shocked when Rodriguez-Maradiaga quoted “as an authority on the morality of international investment the Swiss radical Jean Ziegler – a longtime defender of Fidel Castro, who has called the United States an ‘imperialist dictatorship.’” The cardinal repeated and endorsed Ziegler’s charge:

The globalization of the exchange of services, capital and patents has led over the past ten years to establish a world dictatorship of finance capital. … The lords of financial capital wield over billions of human beings a power of life and death. Through their investment strategies, their stock market speculations, their alliances, they decide day to day who has the right to live on this planet and who is doomed to die.

The cardinal elaborated on Ziegler’s attack on the U.S., asserting:

The effects and consequences of the neoliberal dictatorships that rule democracies are not hard to uncover: they invade us with the industry of entertainment, they make us forget about human rights, they convince us that nothing can be done, that there is no possible alternative. To change the system, it would be necessary to destroy the power of the new feudal lords. Chimerical? Utopian?

The Church decidedly bets on living the globalization of mercy and solidarity.

As one of us observed about this speech:

So democracies like ours are ‘neoliberal dictatorships,’ which the Church will help reform through the ‘globalization of mercy and solidarity,’ that is, by helping governments to seize wealth from some people, skim its own share off the top, and distribute that wealth to others. Those ‘others’ will doubtless be grateful, as Hugo Chavez’s supporters were in Venezuela; indeed, they will form powerful voting blocs dependent on state redistribution of wealth, as directed by humble clergymen.

Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga is no stranger to conspiracy theories. In May 2002, as the clerical sex abuse scandal was erupting all around the world, the cardinal dismissed it as an invention of Jews in the media who resented the Catholic Church for defending the rights of Palestinians — earning a condemnation in the Jewish Journal by Alan Dershowitz, who called Rodriguez-Maradiaga an “overt anti-Semite.”

Not So Much a Conspiracy as a Tsunami

It is unclear what concrete effects George Soros’s expenditures had on the progress of Pope Francis’ visit to America. We have no reason to think that Pope Francis, or even Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga, had any knowledge of the financier’s involvement. But you don’t have to think very hard to wonder why Soros would consider Rodriguez-Maradiaga the ideal entry point for an effort to skew American bishops toward the political left. The two men have a great many views in common.

Even if neither Rodriguez-Maradiaga nor George Soros existed, the leftward slide among many Catholics would still be a problem. There is ample home-grown support among Americans for the “Seamless Garment” doctrine that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin invented, which leftists have used ever since as a poison pill to kill off the pro-life movement. Leave aside elderly bankers and aging Liberation Theologians; there are Joe Biden and Tim Kaine-style Catholics honeycombed through Catholic universities and bureaucracies who wish to submerge our concern for unborn life and religious freedom in a sea of Progressive platitudes. There are leading U.S. bishops eager to carry their banner, like Chicago’s Archbishop Blaise Cupich.

American Catholics who hold to the Church’s traditional social teaching, which elevates innocent life and human freedom, face a long and determined battle against the utopian forces who will ally with the pro-choice left to further their “long march” through Catholic institutions. (For more from the author of “Billionaire George Soros Tries to Mastermind the Leftward Slide of Catholics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Extreme Position of Pro-Choice Politicians Contradicts American Consensus

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lurking behind the annual split among Americans over the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” is a new reality. The fact is that today, whatever label they choose, Americans overwhelmingly support abortion restrictions.

Pro-choice politicians who typically support unrestricted, or almost unrestricted, abortion share the extreme view of a tiny minority of the American people.

Consider this. A majority of Americans who identify as pro-choice (62 percent) say that abortion should be restricted to—at most—the first trimester of pregnancy. Less than a quarter of them (22 percent) want unrestricted abortion.

Among Americans as a whole, the number who want such abortion restrictions is about eight in 10 (78 percent). Only about one in 10 of this group (13 percent) would leave it unrestricted.

Almost twice as many American voters would limit abortion to—at most—saving the life of the mother (24 percent) as would allow it any time.

It’s not a partisan issue either. Strong majorities regardless of political identity would restrict abortion to the first trimester, at most. This includes about two-thirds of Democrats (65 percent), as well as eight in 10 independents (80 percent), and nine in 10 Republicans (93 percent). There are few issues in our country on which you find such a strong consensus from across the political spectrum.

The polling we commissioned on this issue was done by the gold standard in public opinion research: Marist. That’s the same pollster used by NBC News, McClatchy, and The Wall Street Journal.

The numbers have been consistent on this for nearly a decade. Americans overwhelmingly support substantial restrictions on abortion. “Pro-life” politicians typically support bills consistent with this national consensus.

Nevertheless, self-identified “pro-choice” politicians generally hew to a policy orthodoxy that allows for no restrictions at all on abortion—even though it’s a view hardly ever shared by their constituents.

The typical “pro-choice” politician today represents the most radical view of abortion in the country—a view they share with only about one in 10 Americans (13 percent).

Some of these politicians celebrate abortion as a right that should not be restricted in any way. That’s the same line taken by the abortion industry, whose livelihood depends on performing this destructive procedure.

Other politicians hide behind the idea that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, but cannot impose their will on the majority. What majority are they talking about? Nearly everyone in the country wants solid restrictions on abortion, making such a position either ignorant or dishonest.

If a politician is really “personally opposed,” he should have the decency to follow his conscience and not block the vast consensus on this issue.

Better yet, he could take John F. Kennedy’s advice, who said when running for president in 1960 that he would resign if his conscience came into conflict with what he saw as the public interest. Kennedy said he hoped “any conscientious public servant would do the same.” That’s still good advice, and a worthy wish, five decades later.

Instead, the opposite is occurring.

Despite the American consensus on this issue, more and more extreme positions are being proposed by pro-abortion politicians.

Some are pledging to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions—contrary to Americans’ view that tax dollars should not be used this way.

Nearly two in three Americans would prohibit the use of tax dollars for abortion (62 percent). This includes more than four in 10 Democrats (44 percent), more than six in 10 independents (61 percent), and more than eight in 10 Republicans (84 percent).

Those who identify as pro-choice are split too, with 45 percent saying tax dollars should not be used for abortion.

Abortion is now the number one cause of death in America. With more than 50 million abortions since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, no other issue comes close in scale. And yet, each year, another million abortions are allowed to occur by politicians who turn a deaf ear to the will of the people and oppose restrictions.

It’s time for the abortion extremism among these politicians to end. It’s time for “pro-choice” politicians to begin supporting policy proposals that restrict abortion consistent with our national consensus. (For more from the author of “Extreme Position of Pro-Choice Politicians Contradicts American Consensus” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LATEST POLL CONFIRMS: Trump Continues Climb Against Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican nominee Donald Trump continues his upward climb as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton falls in a new national poll, published Sunday by private polling firm Morning Consult.

Clinton still leads, but by a small three-point margin of 43 to 40 percent. Seventeen percent of voters report they don’t have an opinion.

Trump was at 37 percent in the Morning Consult poll published in the beginning of August. Clinton is down from the 46 percent she earned in that same poll.

In the most recent head-to-head poll taken by the same polling agency, Clinton enjoyed a six-point national lead, earning 44 percent to Trump’s 38 percent.

Clinton’s favorability rating also dropped; she only has a one point lead on the Republican nominee in the race. Fifty-eight percent of likely voters rated Trump as unfavorable, compared to 57 percent who said the same of Clinton. An earlier Morning Consult poll published last week revealed that 50 percent of likely voters would never support Trump, while 45 percent of likely voters would never vote for Clinton.

Independents are also much closer than they have been in previous polls. Thirty-five percent support Clinton, and 34 percent support Trump. Thirty-one percent remain undecided in the poll.

The latest Morning Consult poll was conducted from Aug. 24-26. The poll surveyed 2,007 registered voters, and carried a margin of error of 2 percentage points in either direction. (For more from the author of “LATEST POLL CONFIRMS: Trump Continues Climb Against Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.