Posts

Obama Once Again Imagines He Will Save the World

/0 Comments/in , /by

On his inauguration — perhaps apotheosis is a better word — President Obama said that the world would forever remember that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Seven years later, adjusting or forgetting his earlier prophecy, Mr Obama declared in Beijing that his signing of the Paris Agreement on global warming would be known throughout history as “the moment we finally decided to save our planet.”

Either way, if he is right then President Obama will have done what no man has ever done before; he will stop the earth’s climate from changing. How mighty a feat would this be?

Joshua prayed that the sun would stand still. Something very like that will and must occur to stop the climate from changing, because it is the sun’s variability, and the ever-shifting of earth’s position in relation to the sun, which cause the vast bulk of changes in the atmosphere. Though mankind surely influences the climate, just as every species from aardvarks to zebra muscles also influence the climate, our contributions pale next to the powers of the sun.

Can the President’s Agreement command the sun?

Epictetus said, “Crows pick out the eyes of the dead, when the dead have no longer need of them; but flatterers mar the soul of the living, and her eyes they blind.” No man has been as saturated in flattery as President Obama, so it is easy to understand how the poor man could be fail to see to his limitations.

An Agreement or a Treaty?

His blindness might also explain why Mr. Obama declared that he had the power to “ratify” the Agreement as if the Agreement was a legally binding treaty.

Now the President has the power to make treaties, but they only become valid “provided two-thirds of the Senators” concur, or so says the once-important Constitution (we are not forgetting the beatings it has been given by such personages as Anthony Kennedy). Without this concurrence, which no one thinks will be forthcoming, no treaty can become legally binding. This was very fate of the similar Kyoto Protocol on global warming engineered by the Clinton Administration, which also knew it could not convince its Senate to concur. Incidentally, none of its prophecies of doom came to pass.

Yet since Obama must be the savior of the world and “combat” a changing climate, he would bypass the Senate and call the Paris treaty an “Executive Agreement” instead. The President has the power to make Executive Agreements — as long as these do not legally bind the country.

There is no reason to rehash the faulty science behind global warming upon which the Paris Agreement relies. Nor need we dwell on what the legal document would compel the United States to do, mainly because the interpretation of much of the Agreement is open and fluid. Instead we wonder what the Senate will do.

It could insist that the Agreement is a treaty because it legally requires the United States to act in a certain way, and thus pronounce it null. But this would require going on record, which is not likely because many who oppose Mr. Obama are afraid of being labeled “anti-science,” and nobody wants the fight in an election year. Besides, about half the Senate supports Mr Obama’s action.

What will probably happen is that the Senate will allow Mr. Obama’s definition. It has already been noted, for instance, the Agreement uses the word “should” instead of “shall” in delineating its many requirements. Lawyers wrote the Agreement, not scientists, and its “hidden code” is for lawyers to wrangle over.

Because the Senate is controlled (weakly) by those who oppose Mr. Obama, they might think they will be able to stem the reach of the Agreement, for instance by denying its programs money. But Mr. Obama will probably marry the Agreement to the EPA and other agencies under his control, agencies which the Senate are reluctant to touch. The president won’t get everything he wants this way, but he’ll get something.

The end-around sought by the president could backfire, though. If, as he insists, the Agreement contains only suggestions, and is not a treaty, then in five short months under a President Trump, assuming such a thing happens and given Mr. Trump’s statements about global warming, the entire thing will be forgotten. The only way Mr. Obama can influence the climate then is by holding his breath, thus stopping his carbon-dioxide-laden exhalation from polluting the atmosphere. (For more from the author of “Obama Once Again Imagines He Will Save the World” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Liberal Judges Took Control of 70 Percent of US Appeals Courts

/0 Comments/in , /by

On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States of America. After nearly eight years as president, he has delivered on one front by reshaping the federal judiciary.

That revolution has been comprehensive, dramatic, and under the radar.

When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities now control nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent.

Outside of legal circles the transformation of the influential federal appeals courts has gone largely unnoticed, though.

“The Supreme Court grabs the spotlight, but it hears fewer than 100 cases a year,” Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett said, “while the 13 federal courts of appeals handle about 35,000.”

More than one-third of the 179 judges on federal appeals courts owe their seat to Obama, Willett told The Daily Signal. “That’s a legacy with a capital L.”

Obama also has left his mark on the U.S. District Courts, which are the lower federal courts, successfully appointing 268 judges—seven more than President George W. Bush.

Obama didn’t push federal courts to the left by himself, though, since the Senate must confirm a president’s judicial appointments. And some conservatives complain that Senate Republicans handed over the keys to the judiciary without a fight.

“These nominees can’t be characterized as anything but radical liberals, and the senators knew that when they were voting,” said Ken Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia who is now president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee.

While there’s “no singular explanation” for how the majority of federal appeals judges flipped, Cuccinelli told The Daily Signal, Senate Republicans have adopted a strategy of “knee-jerk surrender” on nominees.

Republican leadership balks at that characterization, arguing that they’ve spent most of their time engaging in guerilla-style campaigns against an entrenched, determined Democrat majority.

“A Democrat president has been in office for eight years, most of that with a Democrat Senate, including several years of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority,” a spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told The Daily Signal.

While Republican opposition to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, has remained consistent in the Senate, the strategy for appeals court nominees has fluctuated. Liberals describe it as aggressive, but conservatives belittle it as reserved.

There’s a decent case to be made for both interpretations.

A Republican minority in the Senate filibustered for months in 2013 to keep three Obama nominees—Patricia Ann Millett, Cornelia Pillard, and Robert Leon Wilkins—off the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Senate eventually confirmed all three by narrow margins. But the GOP’s opposition was so stiff that, to overcome it, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid triggered a dramatic rule change known as “the nuclear option.”

To overcome Republican opposition at the time, under the Democrats’ new rules federal judicial nominees can advance to a confirmation vote with the support of a simple majority of senators and without the threat of a filibuster.

As a result, if a party holds the White House and a Senate majority, the president’s nominees are almost guaranteed confirmation.

But Republican antagonism to Obama’s nominees has not been constant.

While in the minority, Republicans often mounted little to no opposition to Obama’s court of appeals nominees. And since winning the Senate majority in the 2014 elections, Republicans have rubber-stamped two appeals justices—Kara Stoll for the Federal Circuit and Luis Restrepo for the 3rd Circuit.

As a result, Obama has fleshed out the judicial roster on the U.S. Court of Appeals, successfully appointing 55 of the 179 judges with little opposition.

Seven more of Obama’s appeals court nominees await consideration in the Senate. With a compressed congressional calendar and Election Day on Nov. 8, however, more confirmations before Obama leaves office seem unlikely.

The ideological makeup of the appeals court has more to do with justices retiring and dying off—“the natural process of attrition”—than politics, said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group.

“Obama was just very aggressive in getting those spots filled,” Severino told The Daily Signal. “And it’s paid off for him, especially on the D.C. Circuit Court [of Appeals], where there have been some really important cases that have come through.”

A conservative stronghold under President George W. Bush, Severino said, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit—which presides over West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina—“is now on the cutting edge of liberal activism.”

In April, that appeals court ruled 2-1 in favor of a transgender student’s right to use the boys’ restrooms and showers in public school. Two Obama appointees, Judges Henry Franklin Floyd and Andre Davis, outvoted Ronald Reagan appointee Paul Niemeyer.

The Senate had confirmed both overwhelmingly and without significant Republican hindrance—Davis in 2009 by a vote of 72-16 and Floyd in 2011 by a vote of 96-0.

The next president could tip the balance of the four remaining circuit courts of appeals still dominated by conservatives.

“It’s hands down the most fateful issue of the election,” said Willett, who is on Republicans’ short list for the Supreme Court.

“When Americans vote in November, they’re choosing not just a president but thousands of presidential appointees, including hundreds of life-tenured judges.” (For more from the author of “How Liberal Judges Took Control of 70 Percent of US Appeals Courts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SHOCKED FACE: Under Obama, National Deficit Skyrockets to Ludicrous Levels, Again

/0 Comments/in , /by

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just revealed that this year’s federal budget deficit will rise to $590 billion, a depressing 35% increase over last year’s already-high $438 billion:

CBO now estimates that the 2016 deficit will total $590 billion, or 3.2 percent of GDP, exceeding last year’s deficit by $152 billion… The deficit is growing in 2016 because revenues are up only slightly, by less than 1 percent ($26 billion), whereas outlays are projected to rise by 5 percent ($178 billion).

As Barack Obama staggers toward the end of his failed presidency, that marks just the latest milestone in what is perhaps his worst legacy, one that remains grotesquely underreported by the “watchdog” mainstream media.

Namely, he possesses what is by far the worst deficit record in U.S. history.

The primary culprit, the CBO explains, is “weaker-than-expected economic growth” that also characterizes the Obama era:

The growth in GDP that CBO now projects is slower throughout the 2016-2026 period than the agency projected in January. Weaker-than-expected economic growth indicated by data released since January, recent developments in the global economy, and a reexamination of projected productivity growth contributed to that downward revision.

Not that you’ll hear any of this from Obama or his willing accomplices, of course.

The most you’ll hear from any of them on the subject is the preposterous claim that Obama has somehow reduced deficits throughout his tenure. That amounts to bragging that he halved annual deficits after first quadrupling them.

Before Obama entered the White House, after all, the largest deficit the nation had ever endured was the record $458 billion in 2008.

But then Obama proceeded to run deficits of $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, another $1.3 trillion in 2011, then $1.1 trillion as he ran for reelection in 2012. In 2013 we finally dipped back below the trillion-dollar mark, but it was still a $680 billion total that dwarfed the largest deficit of George W. Bush’s tenure. We then suffered historically enormous deficits of $492 billion in 2014 and $438 billion last year. And now the CBO reports that Obama’s trajectory is upward once again.

Let’s compare Obama’s deficit record to that of the man he so viciously maligned, George W. Bush.

In 2001, Bush posted a surplus of $127 billion, then deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $161 billion in 2007 and $458 billion in 2008.

Over an eight-year period, that amounts to an accumulated $2 trillion under Bush, or an average of approximately $260 billion. Obama, in contrast, has run up an accumulated $7.3 trillion in deficits, for an average of $913 billion.

Even if one attributes the entire 2009 deficit to Bush (thereby disregarding Obama’s trillion-dollar 2009 “stimulus” and other wasteful spending) and subtracting his 2001 surplus, he still averages just $444 billion for the years 2002 through 2009.

With those comparative averages in mind, it’s only fair to recall July 3, 2008, when Obama labeled Bush “unpatriotic” at a time when the deficit was just $161 billion:

“The problem is, that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents, number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back – $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

So if Bush was “unpatriotic” for averaging $260 billion deficits, what label applies to Obama for averaging $913 billion deficits?

When confronted with these inescapable facts, Obama apologists often rationalize by scapegoating the Bush tax cuts, combined with war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But those rationalizations simply aren’t accurate. War spending in Iraq and Afghanistan reached its peak in 2007, which was also several years after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 took effect. But as noted above, the deficit that year was just $161 billion.

The simple fact is that Obama’s deficit record is the worst in U.S. history, and it’s not even close. Long after he exits the White House, we’ll all still be left paying his bill. (For more from the author of “SHOCKED FACE: Under Obama, National Deficit Skyrockets to Ludicrous Levels, Again” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

MARK LEVIN: Dammit, Obama Lied and Iran Is on Its Way to Nukes!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Thursday on the Mark Levin program, Conservative Review’s Editor-in-Chief read a report indicating the Obama administration cut a secret deal with Iran to permit the terrorist-sponsoring regime to violate restrictions put in place by last year’s nuclear deal.

“This is the biggest issue of the day, the biggest issue of the month, the biggest issue of the year!”

Listen:

“These are impeachable offenses. For Obama. For Vice-President Biden. For Secretary of State Kerry. For Susan Rice. For the whole top-level of the administration, the president on down,” Levin said.

“We have just armed up the most aggressive, detestable terrorist-state on the face of the earth! We’ve just sold out to them! They’re on their way [to] building nuclear weapons!”

“This is the fate that Barack Obama has sealed for the American people!”

Mark Levin continued after the break, tearing into the Iran nuclear deal and the feckless politicians who gave it to us.

“They may seek to wash their hands, but their hands are full of uranium! Their hands are full of plutonium!” (For more from the author of “MARK LEVIN: Dammit, Obama Lied and Iran Is on Its Way to Nukes!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

As Obama Promised, 10,000 Syrian Refugees Have Been Admitted to the US

/0 Comments/in , /by

Surprise, surprise: The State Department announced Monday that the Obama administration is not only going to meet President Obama’s goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees before day’s end, but that the actual number by the end of the year may actually be closer to 12,000, according to Joel Gehrke of the Washington Examiner.

“We will meet the 10,000 figure today, and I would fully expect that you will see additional Syrian refugees admitted into the United States between now and the end of the fiscal year,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby on Monday.

Kirby told reporters he “couldn’t predict” how many more refugees would be coming into the United States, but that the influx “would be roughly on the same pace that we have achieved over the course of the late spring and summer, which has been about 2,000 per month.”

Furthermore, according to CNS News, it is likely that fewer than 50 of the incoming refugees will come from Syria’s Christian population, which has experienced an internationally-recognized genocide at the hand of the Islamic State.

As Conservative Review noted in April, this milestone for the president’s unconstitutional refugee program was achieved thanks in large part to the “surge operation” processing center in Amman, Jordan, which allowed the administration to process thousands of applications every single month — meaning that the majority of the 10,000 were processed in the last few months alone.

This, naturally, has been happening in direct contradiction to the 18- to 24-month vetting process that the American people were promised when the crisis became major international news last year. If you like your national security and public order, you can keep it, right?

This points to one of the biggest problems with Obama’s refugee program — namely that it predicates itself on abuse of statute by treating people who aren’t persecuted religious or ethnic minorities as such (like the administration has also done with Central America), at the detriment to victims who have actually been targeted for their beliefs and/or ethnicity. While Christians made up about 10 percent of pre-war Syria, they’ve made up less than one half of 1 percent of the Obama administration’s admissions.

According to data from the administration’s illegal center in in Amman, just 47 of the 9,902 admitted to the U.S. before Monday were Christians. Members of other faiths include 14 displaced Yazidis (also genocide victims), four Jehovah’s Witnesses, and five listed as “other.”

Aside from the sweeping security concerns posed by bringing in migrants from a war-torn region with a known threat of infiltration — and the fact that it is virtually impossible to screen anyone coming out of the camps specifically for jihadist sympathies — this is simply a program that the American people never voted for and that President Obama has gone well outside of his constitutional authority to enforce. But even though the program has hit its first major benchmark, it isn’t too late to stop it going forward.

Congress currently has the opportunity to stop this by the end of September, when House Speaker Paul Ryan’s failure to bring the budget process back to regular order will once again necessitate a continuing resolution. In effect, the legislative branch will then be able to prohibit the State Department from operating the program.

Unfortunately, it’s unlikely, given that it’s a difficult election year. And while stalwart conservatives will be willing to go to bat against this refugee program, most Republicans are going to try to hide from anything that might even remotely resemble controversy until after election day in November. (For more from the author of “As Obama Promised, 10,000 Syrian Refugees Have Been Admitted to the US” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

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.

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.

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.

3 Ways Obama’s New Overtime Rule Will Hurt Employees

/0 Comments/in , , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.