In a recent interview, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that to fight terrorism, “we need to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs….”
In other words, we can fight terrorism with a jobs program, sort of a stimulus program for the jihadists. If we only have enough shovel ready jobs for the jihadists, there will be no terrorism. How amazing naïve and how terrifyingly stupid, but this is the mentality that is prevalent throughout the Obama administration.
The history of Islamic terrorism is replete with examples of very rich Muslims, such as Osama Bin Laden, who join the jihad and kill for one basic reason and it is not the lack of a job. They kill the “infidels” because of their commitment to their Islamic faith, their interpretation of Islamic doctrine and their desire to serve Allah. It is why so many Islamic terrorists shout “Allahu Akbar” when they kill innocent people.
Harf either does not understand the threat we face or is purposely ignoring the threat, but, either way, it is troubling. Her “jobs” theory took another hit this week with the revelation of the identity of “Jihadi John,” the masked man seen in Islamic State videos beheading innocent hostages. According to multiple media and governmental sources, the masked man is Mohammed Emwazi, a 26 year old Kuwaiti, who moved to London with his family at an early age.
In London, he attended fine schools, was raised in an upper middle class neighborhood and received a degree in computer programming from the University of Westminster in 2009. In fact, he found employment as a computer programmer, but that job did not stop him from becoming radicalized.
According to Shiraz Maher of the King’s College radicalization center, Emwazi may well have traveled to Syria in 2012, later joining the Islamic State. In Maher’s view, Emwazi’s route to terrorism was not caused by the lack of economic opportunities. He said Emwazi’s case is similar to other jihadists, who are “by and large upwardly mobile people, well educated.” The disclosures about Emwazi and the vast majority of Islamic terrorists should debunk the theory held by Harf and others in the Obama administration “that these guys are all impoverished, that they’re coming from deprived backgrounds.”
Emwazi joined the Islamic State to commit terrorist acts and kill “infidels.” He was not looking for a job; he was looking for a religious crusade. He was motivated by religious fervor, not financial considerations.
Back in 2010, the British government recognized that Emwazi was becoming radicalized and prevented him from traveling to Tanzania. Reports indicate that the government was concerned that Emwazi was going to join the Islamic terror group Al-Shabaab.
Incredibly, some pro-Muslim activists criticized how the British government dealt with “Jihadi John” and blame his terrorist activity on supposed “mistreatment.” In reality, he was only targeted for surveillance due to his radical associations. If the government could have stopped him from traveling to Syria in 2012, possibly he would have been unable to join the Islamic State.
At the current time, “Jihadi John” is not using his computer programming degree; he is engaged in 7th century barbarism, beheading innocent hostages who have the misfortune of being captured by the Islamic State.
Unfortunately, at a time of great crisis, the country is being led by an administration that does not want to recognize this reality and refuses to admit the threat emanating from Islamic terrorism or even call it by its name. They prefer the title of “extremism,” a meaningless term for an administration engaged in a meaningless response to Islamic terrorism.
In a country of 330 million Americans, only 11, 000 people in the key 25-54 year old demographic were watching the afternoon programming on the disaster known as MSNBC in the last rating period. These horrific ratings were the lowest registered by the network in a decade. It was not much better at the other time periods for the early January ratings for the broadcast day on MSNBC averaged only 55,000 viewers.
Compared to last year, total viewership on MSNBC is down 20 percent in the daytime and 23 percent in prime time. The yearly declines are even greater in the key 25-54 year old demographic, the one coveted by advertisers.
While the MSNBC audience is tanking, the viewership on Fox News is strong. In the afternoon, 20X more people are watching Fox News than MSNBC. This means that Fox is the unquestioned cable news giant.
It is so bad for MSNBC that even the controversial start-up network Al-Jazeera had twice as many afternoon viewers. When a network is bested by a competitor known for providing sympathetic coverage to radical Islamists it is time for a programming change.
With plummeting ratings, it was no surprise that MSNBC announced this week the cancellation of two afternoon programs. The shows airing from 1-3 pm Eastern, “Ronan Farrow Daily” and “The Reid Report,” will be cancelled at the end of the month. The changes are part of MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s plan to move toward a “more news focused line-up.” However, such promises ring hollow as the network features a prime time line-up composed exclusively of liberals.
If Griffin wants to grow his audience he should try more balanced programming. The two cancelled programs were hosted by hard core liberals Ronan Farrow and Joy Ann Reid. They will be replaced by Thomas Roberts who will host a two hour program. Unfortunately, Roberts is another liberal who had previously failed in an earlier attempt to host a show.
Currently, MSNBC is officially irrelevant with ratings so low that local community access programs undoubtedly have better audience numbers. Clearly, viewers are shunning the inexperienced and liberal hosts offered by the network. For example, Ronan Farrow was a youngster hired due to his celebrity status. His mother is Mia Farrow, an actress, and his biological father is reportedly Frank Sinatra. Sadly for Farrow his blue eyes were not enough to keep his program on the air.
Farrow had no business hosting any serious show, but MSNBC is the same network that has given programs to the likes of Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Rev. Al Sharpton. In America today, few people want to watch leftists apologize for an unpopular President. It should be no surprise that MSNBC is suffering the same fate as Air America, the doomed liberal talk radio network.
Viewers who want liberal programming have options. They can watch CNN, which is not so obvious, or watch a variety of left wing commentators on Fox or tune in to evening news programs on the broadcast networks. News bulletin: Brian Williams and his evening news colleagues are card carrying liberals.
The demise of MSNBC proves again that America is not a liberal nation. The country is not clamoring for liberal anchors pontificating for more government programs, higher taxes, and climate change legislation. Americans want fair and balanced journalism, which is provided by Fox News, and why they are the cable news leader.
To be relevant again, MSNBC should cancel its entire programming schedule. The network should start fresh with a clean slate of hosts. Such a move is not a gamble for anyone who can read a teleprompter can do a better job than Rev. Al Sharpton.
Clearly, the hottest Republican in the country today is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. After a well received speech to Congressman Steve King’s Freedom Summit, Walker has earned media attention and skyrocketed in the polls. Currently, he is in second place in New Hampshire and is leading in Iowa, while he is gaining ground on Florida Governor Jeb Bush nationally.
With the rise of Walker come the very predictable attacks from the liberal media. This week, the Washington Post decided to investigate Walker’s college years at Marquette University. The supposed scandal is that Walker did not graduate from college and left his senior year to take a job with the Red Cross. He eventually married and started winning elections and was not able to return to complete his courses and earn his degree. However, this is no scandal for it places Walker in line with the 69% of Americans who do not have a four year college degree. If elected, Walker would follow in the footsteps of Harry Truman, who also did not have a college degree, but was a successful President.
Clearly, it is much more important for a President to have Walker’s conservative values, strong work ethic, and common sense than advanced academic degrees. The nation has been suffering through six years of Barack Obama, who has an undergraduate degree from Columbia University and a law degree from Harvard University.
Obama is a well educated man, who has been a disaster as President. Unfortunately, Obama, has precious little private sector experience, but was a “community organizer” who was influenced by an array of radicals such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright and communist Frank Marshall Davis. In contrast, the role model for the supposedly under-educated Scott Walker was Ronald Reagan, one of the most influential Presidents in our nation’s history.
It is no surprise why liberals view Scott Walker with extreme trepidation. He has succeeded in a Democratic state and won three statewide elections in the last few years. He defeated the unions, survived a recall election and espouses strong conservative views. If selected as the GOP nominee, Walker would have a real chance of expanding the Republican coalition and attracting blue collar voters. These are voters known as “Reagan Democrats” who do not identify with traditional establishment GOP nominees like Mitt Romney. These voters can connect with Scott Walker who was not born to wealth, but became successful through hard work, perseverance as well as an adherence to traditional conservative values.
Because of his potential appeal, Walker should expect continuing attacks from the liberals in the Democratic Party and the media who will disparage his educational background. For example, on MSNBC, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean claimed “the issue is how well educated is this guy? And, that’s a problem.” Of course, it is only a problem for liberals trying to sabotage Walker’s presidential campaign.
To show how biased the media is on the issue, just look at their complete disinterest in the academic career of Barack Obama. Americans have never been able to view Obama’s college transcripts, so who knows whether did well or not.
In fact, his college years are full of mystery. Did he apply as a foreign student? Was he admitted due to affirmative action? Did he actually attend class? His former classmate at Columbia University, Wayne Allyn Root, claims that he never met Obama, even though they both studied political science. He also notes that he knows of no one at Columbia who ever attended classes with Obama or saw him on campus.
Obama could be the true Manchurian candidate, but the liberal media does not have time to investigate for they are too busy hounding Scott Walker.
The sports media has been in a tizzy covering the scandal known as “deflate gate.” After it was discovered that 11 of the 12 footballs used by the New England Patriots in their playoff game against the Colts were deflated, the media speculation has been intense about whether the Patriots altered the footballs to gain an advantage. It is amazing that with our immense problems, the media is fixated on such a trivial issue. Instead, a related topic is more important, why do Republican Party leaders suffer from deflated balls, politically speaking? The GOP won a landslide mid-term election, but they have been acting ever since like they lost to the Democrats.
Right after the election, Republican leaders in Congress passed the 1774 page “cromnibus” bill which cost $1.1 trillion and funded the President’s executive amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens and the unpopular Obamacare legislation. This was in direct opposition to the wishes of voters who gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress. The anger was so intense that conservatives swamped congressional offices with demands that John Boehner be replaced as Speaker of the House. Again, due to a lack of courage, only 25 House Republicans voted against Boehner. It seems GOP congressmen do not have the appetite for real change either within their party or throughout the nation.
While the President has been aggressively building his liberal legacy and acting like he won the November election, the real winners have been acting like losers and capitulating to Obama.
After the Boehner revolt, the House finally passed a bill to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from funding executive amnesty, but the bill is now headed to the Senate where it faces an “uncertain” future. Senate leaders say they will “try” to pass the bill but no conservative should ever trust Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In the official response to the President’s State of the Union address, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) did not mention executive amnesty, even though the majority of Americans strongly disapprove.
Lack of Republican courage as was also evident in a border security bill that Republican House leaders were advocating. Fortunately, a revolt by conservatives postponed a vote on the inadequate measure. The initial bill did not contain enough border security measures to please the newly formed House Freedom Caucus, composed of nine courageous conservatives.
According to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the bill is flawed for a variety of reasons including the fact that it “…it does not cut-off access to federal welfare; and it does not require completion of the border fence.” While congrats are due to the conservatives who killed the bill, the episode highlighted how GOP leadership is more comfortable tinkering with a problem than solving it. They want to pursue half measures instead of forceful action.
While Americans overwhelmingly support enhanced border security with more border patrol agents and additional fencing, GOP leaders lack the “cojones” to pass a tough bill. They are afraid of criticism from the media, Hispanic groups and Democratic colleagues. They are scared of being called racists, so, as a result, they are unwilling to pass meaningful legislation.
In the meantime, the 2016 presidential race is starting and conservative Republicans are desperately looking for a nominee who is courageous and will not be intimidated by the media or special interest groups. They want a nominee who is unafraid of criticism and a confident conservative who will move this country in the right direction. Such leaders are in short supply and they stand in stunning contrast to what has been displayed by the GOP’s dynamic duo of deflation: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
With 21 months until the 2016 presidential race, the GOP field of candidates is large and impressive. Approximately two dozen prominent Republicans have expressed an interest in running for President. Most of the candidates are strong conservatives with solid credentials. Unfortunately, the field also includes two well known moderates, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who both have the ability to raise large sums of money and become a major factor in the upcoming election.
The most serious establishment candidate is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is the odds on favorite to secure the presidential nomination. Bush is actually leading in the polls with the most name recognition. With a brother and father who served as President, Jeb Bush will be difficult to beat.
In recent weeks, he has been aggressively working to lock up big donors and key activists. His campaign organization has been growing so steadily that it forced former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to exit the race. In early January, Romney announced to a small gathering of donors that he was interested in running for President a third time. However, when he started trying to build a campaign network across the country, Romney realized that Jeb Bush has already signed up many of the top GOP contributors and consultants. Romney soon came to the realization that he could not raise enough money to seriously challenge Bush for the nomination. Thus, three weeks after floating a trial balloon expressing interest, Romney officially decided not to run for President.
Bush is a good man from a good family, but he is wrong on an array of issues such as taxes, immigration and common core. He made the ludicrous comment that Romney lost in 2012 because he ran too far to the right. The country does not want or need another person with the last name of Bush as President. Even Barbara Bush admitted as much in an interview last year. Unfortunately, too many big Bush donors do not realize this fact, showing how seriously out of touch they are with real Americans.
For those moderates who are not enamored with Bush, they have a viable alternative: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is currently in Europe trying to burnish his foreign policy credentials. Christie met with Romney last week, as the former Massachusetts Governor left the race. Christie is considered a moderate on social issues, such as gay marriage. He is soft on immigration and has supported the Dream Act. In addition, Christie is a strong supporter of strict gun laws, which may be popular in New Jersey, but is likely to be very unpopular in the South. Sadly, like Bush, Christie is just wrong on too many issues.
The moderate wing of the Republican Party, otherwise known as the establishment, has controlled the GOP nomination process since the Reagan years. This wing of the party is usually at odds with the more conservative or grassroots wing of the party, which is often associated with the Tea Party movement. Most moderates view the Tea Party activists with disdain and will work tirelessly to prevent a conservative from achieving the nomination in 2016.
The problem with this scenario is that the moderates are very successful at winning the Republican Party nomination, but horrible at winning the presidential election. As evidence, we can view the failed presidential campaigns of George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The last true conservative, who won the Republican nomination, Ronald Reagan, won a 49 state electoral landslide.
If the Republican Party wants to win the White House again, a conservative needs to be nominated for President. This should be a foregone conclusion, but it is a subject of much debate within the GOP. The establishment wing of the party believes that only candidates like Bush and Christie can reach the Independent voters who are in play for every presidential election. In contrast, only a conservative nominee can reach the blue collar Reagan Democrats who are not typically Republican voters and unite the various groups within the party such as libertarians and evangelicals. Only a conservative presidential nominee will be able to draw a sharp distinction with a liberal Democrat candidate, such as Hillary Clinton, on the critical fiscal, social and foreign policy issues that will be addressed in the campaign.
In 2016, it will take a strong conservative to win the White House for the GOP and defeat the Democrats. By the next election, our country will have suffered through eight years of a dangerously liberal President. It will be essential for a true conservative to become our next President and rebuild our economy and bolster our national security.
Conservatism works as a framework for both governing and winning elections. Hopefully, a majority of Republican Party voters will come to this realization in time to save their party and, more importantly, save their country.