The Louisiana Governor's Mansion flipped to the Democrats just four years after Bobby Jindal won re-election against a Democrat who only got 17% of the vote with Jindal winning every parish. There are some lessons national Republicans should take away.
First, candidates matter. David Vitter was a terrible candidate. He threw Bobby Jindal under the bus to show Louisiana that he too was tired of Jindal. The state party did not take so kindly to Vitter's scorched earth policy against Republicans. But then there were the prostitutes. Oh, and there was the abortion.
Sometimes Donald Trump would be better served by being quiet. Because his inability to self-edit his stream of consciousness leads to those cringe-worthy moments when he says things that are scary if he believes them and equally scary if he doesn’t believe them.
Maybe John Weaver is a political genius and we just can’t see it. Maybe his plan – which always consists of running against conservatives – will one day earn someone the Republican nomination for President. Thus far, though, the results have been pretty abysmal.
This week, Belgium raised their terror alert and the Prime Minister gave a speech on increasing security. Today, the city of Brussels is locked down and troops are patrolling the streets in response to what is being called a “precise” threat.
Here is the Donald Trump quote in question: “I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering…” And that seems to be a pretty straightforward quote, there.
One of the critical battles going on beneath the radar is the battle between Ben Carson and Ted Cruz for the Evangelical, and I’d say conservative Catholic, vote. While Trump is trolling everyone in sight to earn free media and Marco Rubio is picking Jeb Bush’s moldering bones, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson have been carrying on a polite, gentlemanly, and low key war. The winner of this fight could very easily become the nominee.
This leaves Republicans burdened with being the realistic, bubble popping party. Republicans, for the most part, are the ones who understand that just because something sounds nice and warm, doesn’t mean it’s realistic to implement. So they have to fight not only for their own policies, but against these empty “feel-good” statements, against the media spins, and against the demonization of them for daring suggest it would be beneficial to all of society for people to take a little more responsibility for themselves.
The majority of the M Generation bases everything on the emotions of the moment, not facts. But you already know this because you’ve observed what is happening at Mizzou, Amherst, and other institutions of “higher learning” across the nation. College kids, who stomp their feet at so-called “oppression,” can’t bear an environment of differing viewpoints. Do they actually believe the “Coexist” bumper stickers on their Priuses?
There is probably no one currently running for president who can out-pander Hillary Clinton. This is to be expected. When your entire life is a testament to the power of the lie, pandering comes naturally. One of the most amusing things she does is un-corking her half-assed imitations of regional accents.
The world has just recovering from the shock of a major terrorist attack in Paris, as well as in Beirut. Now, in a video, ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] has threatened to commit another major terrorist attack, this time in Times Square, a major crowded and busy area of Manhattan. NYC [New York City] Mayor Bill De Blasio has stated that NYC will not be intimidated by the recent terrorist threat. As NYC officials try to reassure New Yorkers that there is no terrorist threat and tell people to keep going on with their lives, a former Al Qaeda terrorist predicts that ISIS will attack America in the next two weeks.
Let’s say it as it is. Mayor De Blasio saying that NY refuses to be intimidated sounds as if it might as well come from a bullied kid who keeps on getting beaten up by the school bully as he walks down the halls saying, “I refuse to be intimidated.” And of course, despite his brief moment of fame, he gets beaten up again. I can understand NYC officials trying to reassure the fears New Yorkers have of this recent terrorist threat. But what’s even more needed is prevention. And that means doing what it takes to stop ISIS, not trying to take any “high road” or get all concerned about whether any terrorist will be uncomfortable getting waterboarded and putting that before the safety and security of the people in NY or anywhere else who are threatened by ISIS terrorists. I recently wrote an article saying that in certain circumstances, torturing ISIS terrorists is justified. And that view of mine has been strengthened by recent events such as the terrorist attacks in Beirut and Paris and the recent terrorist threat in Times Square, an area that I know to be ultra-crowded from having walked there before [considering that I live in NY, although I currently go to college in Vermont]. So as a New Yorker, I say, “Please torture the ISIS terrorists.” I’m begging that ISIS terrorists get tortured if that’s what it takes to stop this recent terror attack that ISIS plans on committing [yes, I think ISIS is planning on committing this attack]. De Blasio saying that NYC refuses to be intimidated is clearly not enough because if anything, it’s calling ISIS on its “bluff.” What’s needed is prevention, not just reassurance or merely sounding like a bullied boy who is standing up to a school bully in front of the whole school right before getting beaten up.
ISIS and other Muslim terrorists thrive off of the weakness of their enemies [and of the West in particular]. It’s what boosts their morale and emboldens them. This weakness in the fight against Islamic terrorists has led to the knife intifada and a series of recent terrorist attacks against innocent people in Israel, among the most recent being a car attack on a father and his son in Hevron [Hebron] when they were driving to pick out flowers for Shabbat [and as I was writing this article, there are even more terror attacks on Jews in Israel that's more recent than that particular vicious attack]. And yet, back in 2002, during the second intifada, then-President of the Israeli Supreme Court Aharon Barack said:
Sometimes, a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back.
I remember when Alan Dershowitz bragged about Israel fighting with one hand tied between its back. And from my memory, Aharom Barack was where he got it from. Clearly, fighting with one hand tied behind its back is what gives these terrorists encouragement, whether in Israel, America, or the West. The reason why ISIS attacked in Paris and why it’s going on a bloodthirsty rampage is because they’re emboldened by our [the West's] weakness Not only are we less serious about the fight against ISIS, but because of excessive political correctness, we care more about the terrorists than we do about their victims of potential victims. As innocent lives are on the line and as Muslim terrorists are going on a murderous bloody rampage, we have weak leaders who look at the situation as nothing more than logic puzzles and who pat themselves on the back for taking the “high road” or fighting with one hand tied behind its back. The Department of Homeland Security, under Janet Nepalitano [when she was serving as its head under Obama] decided to stop calling terrorism “terrorism” and instead to call it “man-made disasters.” While ISIS is on a rampage, we [America] have a President who says stuff like “ISIS is not Islamic,” never mind that in addition to the fact that the first I stands for “Islamic,” ISIS itself acts fully in the name of their fanatical interpretation of Islam and uses Muslim texts [whether out of context or not] to justify its barbaric actions. Instead, Obama harped back to the crusades, in order to say, “Put your head in the sand as ISIS is on a murderous rampage because of what the Crusades did” [albeit not in those exact words]. The point is that as Muslim terrorists are on a rampage, America, the West and Israel has had weak leaders. As for Israel, though Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is definately a better option than any crazy on the Israeli left, it’s still under him that more Arab terrorists have been released from prisons even in the mere hope of peace, only to have those terrorists back with their barbaric murders of innocent people in Israel [also back in 2005, Israel left Gaza in the "hope" of peace, only to have Gaza turn into a terrorist base, rocket attacks from Gaza onto Israel increasing, and Hamas, a genocidal Islamo-Fascist terrorist group whose charter calls for another Holocaust on the Jewish people, taking over Gaza].
The point is that Israel, America, and the West need to stand strong against Islamic terrorists, even if it means doing things that may make the CIA, the Mossad, the IDF, the American army, or any other army or secret service out to defend their countries, actions that may make its members uncomfortable or seem unethical [although since it's done in the service of saving innocent lives, it is not unethical in these situations]. I strongly believe that our rights come from Hashem [G-d]. And I believe that all other human rights come from the most precious sacred right we got from G-d, the sanctity of human life. Without respect for the basic sanctity of human life, we got nothing. So therefore, any right that may clash with the sanctity of human life should get suspended. It’s really that simple. However, once you commit barbaric murders like Muslim terrorists did, you lose you’re right to live and all your human rights. Therefore, if we have to torture these terrorists to save innocent lives, we should do it. And even if saving lives means threatening to embarrass their families [Arab and Muslim cultures are largely built around honor], we should do it [hopefully the mere threat already forces the terrorists to reveal the crucial information to save innocent lives and take down their terrorist infrastructure] because it’s better to have people embarrassed [or possibly get embarrassed] than more dead bodies. I know it may sound harsh. But when faced with those two options, choose the option that involves the shedding of less blood [and if possible, the shedding or no blood at all]. So the point is: As a New Yorker, I say to do what it takes to stop ISIS from committing that terrorist attack. Do what it take to foil that planned attack, even if the terrorists are uncomfortable in the process. I want to live. I don’t want to be risking my life every time I walk in Times Square. And I don’t want to hear about it in the news or in my emails. Screw what the leftist media says or what the far-leftists or the ACLU say. I say that the top priority should be for the safety of the people in NY or anywhere else who are threatened by Muslim terrorism, not whether these terrorists or their families may be uncomfortable when trying to find out vital information that’s needed to save lives and to more effectively fight the war on Islamic terrorism.
Secretary of State John Kerry of the disgraceful Obama Administration, blamed the recent terror onslaught, which consists of some of the most blood thirsty murders of innoent Jews in Israel, to Israeli settlements [that is to Jews who seek to reclaim their homeland, in the face of hostile anti-Semitic world opinion which wants to ethnically Israel's biblical heartland of Jews]. Here’s what John Kerry said:
So here’s the deal. What’s happening is that unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody. And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years. Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.
At best, this comment can clearly be summed up to making a moral equivalence, specifically as if he sounds like both sides are just frustrated. But leaving that aside, clearly this comment is a perfect example of victim blaming. It’s blaming Israel for the recent terrorist onslaught and is factually incorrect. Settlements are not the cause of terrorism. Let’s go down history lane, which is something anti-Israel propagandists don’t like [they like to show these ridiculous maps of how much land the "Palestinians" lost without mentioning that the "Palestinians" never had a sovereign country and that the land was under the British Mandate prior to the establishment of Israel and under Muslim, but Turkish, not Arab, rule for more than 400 years before that]. In 1947, the UN partitioned the land, which gave the Arabs Gaza, the “West Bank” and some areas that are now known to be in pre-1967 Israel and the Jews a sliver of the land [Jerusalem was to be an international zone]. The Jews accepted that plan while the Arabs rejected that plan. The Arabs chose to continue going to war with the Jews, rather than building up their nation that was supposed to coexist with Israel. In May 15, 1948, one day after Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion proclaimed the independance of the State of Israel on the portion given to the Jews, five Arab armies invaded Israel in order to do what then-Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha said was to be a “momentous massacre and a war of extermination like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” Thanks to the help of Hashem [G-d], the Jews managed to survive against all odds. However, Jordan and Egypt, two of the invading Arab countries, usurped Gaza and the “West Bank.” Egypt usurped Gaza while Jordan usurped the “West Bank” and the eastern half of Jerusalem.
From 1949 [after the 1948 War] all the way to 1967, when Israel again defended itself against Arab agressors who wanted a second Holocaust on the Jewish people, when there was not a single Jew living in those territories [the Jordanians and the Egyptians did not allow Jews to live in those areas when they ruled them], there was still terrorist aggression against Israel. There were still attempts by terrorists and dictators in the Arab and Muslim World to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. So clearly settlements is not only not the cause, but the “Palestinian” terorrists also see Tel Aviv and Haifa as illegal settlements. And that’s the problem. Since 2005, Gaza has been emptied of any Jew living there. Israel left Gaza and left greenhouses for the “Palestinians” to start engaigng in nation building, only to have the green houses demolished and rocket launchers set up in their place. Rocket attacks from Gaza onto Israel increased. Gaza is run by Hamas, an ISIS-like Islamo-Nazi terrorist group whose charter calls for another Holocaust on the Jewish people. The people in Sderot and other cities and towns in southern Israel have to deal with rocket attacks from Gaza, an area with no settlements. This shows that settlements is not the cause of terrorism. The genocidal ideology of the “Palestinians” is the cause of the terrorism.
Israel handing over territory to terrorists, releasing terrorists from its prisons, and showing weakness that emboldens the terrorists, not Israeli settlements, is the cause of terrorism. During this knife intifada, it’s clear that the genocidal terorrist incitement, which appears all over social media [with Facebook and other groups taking little action against those who post it], is the cause of this spike of terrorism, not settlements, which occupy less than 3% of the “West Bank” and has been, along with the State of Israel, the biggest source of employment for Arabs in the “West Bank.” John Kerry is clearly putting his head in the sand in a bid to bow to the radical Muslims, which empowers groups like ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. Whether the Obama Administration is hired as a double agent for radical Muslims or not is irrelevant because its policies have bennifitted radical Muslims so much. The weakness from America, the West, and Israel has emboldened the terrorists and encouraged them with their murderous rampage. But let’s say the facts. The “Palestinians” have no right to a state in Israel. It’s Jewish land. The Arabs in Israel need to either accept Jewish sovereignty or, if they want to live under Arab and Muslim rule, leave and go to one of the hellholes surrounding Israel.
If we truly do want to get rid of ISIS, why aren’t we doing anything about the Islamic governments that are funding them, aiding them and facilitating the sale of their oil? As you will see below, ISIS fighters hop back and forth over the Turkish border with impunity, there are “direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members”, and more than $800,000,000 worth of ISIS oil has been sold in Turkey. If these things are true, action must be taken. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey, 92 percent of Americans consider Islamic terrorism to be a serious threat to the United States, and a Washington Post-ABC News survey found that 83 percent of registered voters believe that a terror attack that causes a large amount of casualties inside the United States is likely in the near future. The American people clearly want ISIS to be dealt with, so why isn’t the Obama administration doing anything to go after the state sponsors of such terror?
At this point, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is taking place in Iraq and Syria, and the mainstream media is certainly not being straight with us. That is why I want to share with you some key excerpts from an amazing article that was written by award-winning journalist and best-selling author Dr. Nafeez Ahmed. According to his bio, he has “written for the Independent on Sunday, The Independent, The Scotsman, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Huffington Post, New Statesman, Prospect Magazine, Le Monde Diplomatique, among many others.” His recent article entitled “NATO is harbouring the Islamic State” is a must read. In particular, what he has to say about the relationship between the Turkish government and ISIS is extremely eye opening…
A senior Western official familiar with a large cache of intelligence obtained this summer from a major raid on an ISIS safehouse told the Guardian that “direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now ‘undeniable.’”
The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. “The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed,” said the official. “There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both.”
But it isn’t just that Turkey and ISIS have “direct dealings” with each other. In his article, Ahmed goes on to explain that ISIS uses Turkish territory as a home base from which to conduct attacks, and ISIS trucks are able to travel back and forth across the border and throughout Turkey quite freely…
The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the “border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February.” ISIS militants would freely travel “through Turkey in a convoy of trucks,” and stop “at safehouses along the way.”
The former ISIS communication technician also admitted that he would routinely “connect ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions,” adding that “the people they talked to were Turkish officials… ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks.”
Unless the U.S. military and our intelligence agencies are completely blind, deaf and dumb, the Obama administration surely must know all of this already.
So why are they allowing it to happen?
In addition, in his article Ahmed also documented the fact that ISIS has been able to sell more than 800 million dollars worth of oil in Turkey…
Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS’ expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country.
Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million — that was over a year ago.
If ISIS had no place to sell their oil, they would be a far less formidable enemy.
And anyone that believes that the Obama administration does not know exactly where all of that oil is being sold is either completely clueless or is almost unbelievably naive.
Once we understand the role that the U.S. government played in the rise of ISIS, things begin to make more sense. I encourage everyone to check out the excellent video by Ben Swann that I have posted below…
And I think that everything that I have shared above helps to explain why Barack Obama has been so soft on ISIS. In fact, an article posted on the Washington Free Beacon that just came out says that Obama has been blocking 75 percent of all airstrikes against ISIS targets…
U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Needless to say, this is more than just a little bit alarming, and many of our military leaders are absolutely disgusted by Obama’s approach. The following comes from Newsmax…
According to the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., the policy is coming under attack by military leaders who believe it has enabled ISIS to gain strength within the region.
“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said.
“I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”
While Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s evaluation of the policy, he noted that it’s not only severely “constricting the U.S.,” but he believes it has “been an absurdity from the beginning.”
Could it be possible that Obama never intended to win the war against ISIS?
Could it be possible that Obama simply wanted to try to “contain” them and use them as a tool to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria?
Could it be possible that he is purposely turning a blind eye to the assistance that the Turks, the Saudis and other Arab governments in the region are giving to ISIS?
If the answer to any of those questions is “yes”, then the entire war against ISIS is a complete and total fraud, and Obama should be immediately impeached.
Things are not as they seem, and the American people are not being told the truth.
Please share this article with as many people as you can on Facebook, Twitter and through email. Our government has actively betrayed us, and now Islamic terror is more of a threat to our way of life than ever before.
A suicide bomber died and went to Paradise, as foretold. When he arrived there he said to Allah that he was ready to claim his 72 virgins, as promised. Out of curiosity he asked Allah why there were so many virgins in heaven.
Allah regarded him for a moment, then replied, "Actually, the 72 virgins are here in heaven because people like you murdered them before they could experience the pleasure of sex. So you're here to service them. And since they're virgins, they're quite sexually ravenous and, frankly, you'll be on constant, exhausting duty. I shall banish you from Paradise should you fail!"
The bomber responded, "Well, I guess I can live with that. How hard can it be to keep 72 women satisfied for all eternity?"
Key Take-Away: The combined Kurdish offensive against ISIS in Sinjar is less significant as a tactical gain against ISIS than as a symbolic victory for multiple Kurdish factions that will ultimately compete for dominance. Coalition airstrikes and advisers supported the KDP Peshmerga operation, while fighters from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Syrian Women's and People's Protection Units (YPJ and YPG), and local Yazidi militias also participated. The competition between the KDP and the PKK will likely intensify during the ongoing political crisis in Iraqi Kurdistan over the KDP-held regional presidency. PKK and Peshmerga mobilization in Iraq, even when directed against ISIS, threatens local Arab populations who fear Kurdish occupation on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border. It also threatens Turkey, among other regional actors, who fear Kurdish autonomy and the potential for Kurdish forces to gain the upper hand in Mosul ultimately. The Kurdish victory at Sinjar therefore requires that the anti-ISIS coalition balance the interests of Kurds and Sunni Arabs in northern Iraq. Ethnic tensions were also exposed in Tuz Khurmato, where PUK Peshmerga clashed with ethnic Turkmen Iranian proxy militia members. The clash was violent enough to cause ISF, Peshmerga, and proxy militia forces to move forces to Tuz Khurmato to prevent escalation, while delegations of PUK, Iranian, Iranian proxy, and Iraqi government leaders and officials arrived to negotiate ceasefires between the combatants. This ethnic fault line challenges the interests of Iran as well as the U.S.-led coalition in a sector of northern Iraq's Disputed Internal Boundaries (DIBs) where the ISF is less dominant than either Iranian proxies or forward-deployed PUK Peshmerga. Ethnic tension and intra-Kurdish competition both work to the detriment of northern Iraq's security at a tenuous time for PM Abadi's government.
The United Nations, in 2000, advocated the "replacement" of Europe's population by Muslim migrants.
There seems to be an economic premise underlying this view: that importing the Muslim world en masseinto Europe is mutually beneficial. For decades, the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe has been labelled "enrichment." Shouting "Islamophobia" does not negate how it is virtually impossible to think of a country actually made richer by it.
Even in a country with an established Islamic population such as Britain, Muslim unemployment languishes at 50% for men, and 75% for women.
Those using an economic rationale to implement Europe's demographic transformation fail to recognize the complexities of Islam: they ignore the fundamentalist revival that has been ongoing for over a century. One feature of this growing embrace of literalism is a belief -- validated by scripture -- that Muslims are entitled to idly profit from the productivity of infidels.
The idea that with time, Islam's religious tenets will somehow moderate and dissolve, merely by being lodged in Europe, is wishful thinking, especially in communities where Muslim migrants already outnumber indigenous Europeans.
The "blind eye" turned towards polygamy in Britain, France, Belgium and Germany has ensured that some Muslim men have upwards of 20 children by multiple wives, almost always at state expense. This suggests that families with fundamentalist views are outbreeding their more moderate coreligionists.
Anjem Choudary (center), a prominent British Islamist, has urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so they could have time to plot holy war. "We [Muslims] take the Jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money."
The word "refugee" is a legal term, one defined by several international treaties. These documents brought the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) into existence, and sustain the relevance of the United Nations agency responsible for refugees to this day.
The contents of these treaties, however, sit oddly with how the UNHCR has comprehensively sought to hoodwink the European public about the predominant status of the demographic influx into their continent this year.
None of these documents -- the 1951 Refugee Convention; the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, or the EU's own Dublin Regulations -- grants the right of refugee status to those traversing several safe countries, and illegally crossing multiple borders, to shop for the best welfare state.
by Lawrence A. Franklin • November 18, 2015 at 4:00 am
Iranian military commanders, security chiefs and conservative media outlets are coming close to questioning the competence and loyalty of those in the Iranian regime who favor the JCPOA.
The surreal irony, of course, is that President Obama keeps assuring the world -- as recently as last week again, when he met with Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu -- that he is "preventing" Iran from getting nuclear weapons, while the truth is that his "deal" -- if the Iranians ever sign it -- not only green-lights Iran's nuclear program, but in fact finances it.
Iran's hardliners are pressing their attack on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which has not yet been approved by Iran. Iran's opponents of the JCPOA have succeeded in halting any steps toward implementation of Tehran's responsibilities under the July14 settlement reached in Vienna by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the US, the UK, France, China and Russia, plus Germany (the so-called P5+1). But who appointed them?
While some reports indicated that Iran was beginning to take off the production line some of the uranium-enrichment centrifuges in the Natanz and Fordow facilities, contradictory reports suggested that any such action was halted due to pressure from Iran's hardliners, and that dismantling the centrifuges had not been authorized by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and was therefore premature. Another report suggested that only a small number of outdated centrifuges had been decommissioned.
