Friday, January 3, 2025

Bourbon Street Massacre Is What 'Globalize the Intifada' Looks Like

Bourbon Street Massacre Is What 'Globalize the Intifada' Looks Like

Josh Hammer

AP Photo/George Walker IV

As woke illiberalism replaced live-and-let-live liberalism as the animating ideology of the American Left, the state of Israel has increasingly found itself on the outs. Never mind that modern Israel was founded by, and for three decades politically dominated by, a bunch of left-wing socialists. Never mind that Harry Truman, an iconic liberal Democratic president, became the first world leader to recognize the fledgling Jewish state a mere 11 minutes after it announced its independence in 1948. None of that history matters on the left anymore, after wokeism supplanted liberalism.

In the fatuous neo-Marxist dichotomy of modern wokeism, Jews are deemed a "white," "oppressor" class; Muslims, by contrast, are deemed a "brown," "oppressed" class. To be a leftist in good standing, then, necessitates supporting the latter over the former -- and, therefore, supporting Palestinian Arab jihadism over the Jewish people's eternal will to survive. To the woke, the Palestinian Arabs' quest to annihilate the Jews of Israel represents a vogue and chic cause -- just like Black Lives Matter did five years ago, and just like same-sex marriage did five years before that.

The apotheosis of this bemusing sentiment was the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023. Sure, babies were beheaded, women were raped, beautiful young music festival attendees were butchered, and Holocaust survivors were executed in their homes -- but "Palestine" was being "decolonized," and every good leftist knows you have to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet! The ends always justify the means, as Saul Alinsky famously taught. Accordingly, in the words of disgraced Cornell history professor Russell Rickford, the Hamas massacre was "exhilarating" and "energizing."

The imperative now, as thousands of young jihadis infesting America's university campuses have made clear, is to spread the "love": to "globalize the intifada" and, in the words of the radical leftists who congregated in Times Square in New York City earlier this week, to foment a worldwide "intifada revolution." The more, the merrier: Sharing is caring, after all!

Alas, Americans now know exactly what "globalize the intifada" and "intifada revolution" means, in practice: Bourbon Street, New Orleans, around 3:15 a.m. local time on New Year's Day. There, a U.S. Army veteran-turned-radicalized Muslim convert by the name of Shamsud-Din Jabbar drove a rented pickup truck into a jam-packed crowd of New Year's partiers. The truck was packed with weapons, improvised explosive devices and -- you guessed it -- an ISIS flag. The tragic human cost of this one intifada mini "revolution" was at least 15 dead and more than 30 others injured.

That's quite a few "eggs" -- with no discernible "omelet" in site.

While Jabbar's full radicalization story is not yet known, we do know he was active in a Houston mosque called Masjid Bilal. Following the Big Easy massacre of one of their congregants, the mosque took to social media to instruct its members not to respond to the FBI if approached, and to instead direct all inquiries to CAIR. That would be the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which was once described by an FBI counterterrorism chief as a "front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants." In 2007, CAIR was listed by the FBI as an unindicted co-conspirator during the case against the Holy Land Foundation -- the largest terror financing prosecution in Department of Justice history.

But hey, at least Islam is an "oppressed" religion, right?

For many years, political elites deluded themselves into thinking that the existential threat posed by radical Islamic jihad was somehow limited or contained. Leaders became overconfident after the (long-overdue) assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the successful campaign against ISIS a few years later. As for Hamas and Hezbollah? Israel's problem, not ours! (Perhaps we might consider asking the families of the victims of Hezbollah's 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut for their thoughts on that.)

Elites, in short, convinced themselves that radical Islam was no longer a major problem. They deemed it far more pressing to focus on the "domestic terror threat" posed by Christian grandmothers praying outside abortion clinics -- or parents speaking up at school board meetings about racial and gender indoctrination in their children's schools. As for the U.S.-Mexico border, which the 9/11 Commission strenuously recommended we secure in its final report over two decades ago? Fling it wide open, baby! What could possibly go wrong?

Well, New Orleans -- that's what could go wrong. And tragically, that's what will continue to go wrong until this nation once again seals its porous borders and once again becomes serious about confronting the jihadist threat. Perhaps Israel -- home of the exploding Hezbollah pagers -- might even share some advice, if anyone here cares to ask.

https://townhall.com/columnists/joshhammer/2025/01/03/bourbon-street-massacre-is-what-globalize-the-intifada-looks-like-n2649925?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Former Dem Presidential Candidate (Not Tulsi) on Why Democrats Keep Losing

Former Dem Presidential Candidate (Not Tulsi) on Why Democrats Keep Losing

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Remember Representative Dean Phillips? The Minnesota Democrat who mounted a primary challenge to Joe Biden in the run-up to the 2024 election, citing concerns over old Joe's age? The challenge was slam-dunked by the national Democratic Party machine, following which Phillips was vindicated when that same party apparatus kicked befuddled old Joe to the curb and replaced him with the only candidate who may have been even worse - Kamala Harris. 

Now Phillips is speaking loudly about why the Democrats lost this election, and unlike most Democrats, on this topic, at least, he's making some sense.

The Minnesota Democrat, in an interview with Politico, blasted his party as “rudderless” after Democrats lost the White House and the Senate, and failed to take back the House of Representatives.

“This party needs a comprehensive turnaround, and conventional wisdom no longer works. A party that consists of multiple silos and campaign committees and outside groups cannot strategically do its job, and that means leadership,” Phillips said.

“Right now, we are totally devoid of leadership. We are rudderless,” he added. “I don’t know which Democratic Party member my colleagues would point to as the leader, de facto leader, and absent that, I don’t see much, frankly, happening.”

He also said that Democrats should engage with groups the party has “turned our back on” as it searches for answers and standard bearers.

He's not wrong about leadership. Who, exactly, is the Democrat's standard-bearer right now? Joe Biden? He barely knows what day it is. Kamala Harris? She checked out after the election when Donald Trump crushed her like a garden slug under a steam-roller. Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer?

Nobody knows, which I think is Dean Phillips' point.

He's not happy about the current state of affairs, which is anything but surprising.

Regarding his longshot presidential bid and calls for Biden to step down that eventually were echoed, Phillips took little solace, saying he expected the “comprehensive” rejection of his candidacy by the Democratic Party.

“If what I feel now is vindication, it’s awfully unsatisfying. I felt vindicated the day I announced my campaign, because I knew this was not an opinion. This was a fact,” Phillips told the outlet. “The fact was, he was not in a position to win. The fact was his approval numbers were historically low. The fact was his physical decline was real. And the only vindication I cared about was my own, and I’m saddened that I’m vindicated.”

A Democrat talking about facts. Fancy that.

Even if Phillips had managed to pull off the primary challenge, it's not certain he would have beaten Trump. The winds seemed to be at Trump's back, and the July assassination attempt and Trump's rebound from that, well, that alone probably netted him a lot of votes. And Dean Phillips has little or no name recognition outside of Minnesota.

But he would have stood a better chance than either Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, and for Phillips, seeing Trump smash through the seven swing states like the Kool-Aid man had to be frustrating.


See Related: Clueless Talking Head Scolds Dems for Snubbing Clueless Congresswoman for Leadership Slot

Biden’s Presidential Library Might Be More of a ‘Bookmobile’ As Democrats Threaten to Withhold Donations


Dean Phillips didn't seek reelection. He's leaving the House of Representatives in January, and it's unclear what he'll do next. But nationwide, Democrats would do well to listen to him. He seems to be one of the few who really understands what's happening with the ever-loonier Democratic Party these days.

And as I'm fond of saying - let's hope they never figure that out.

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/12/29/former-dem-presidential-candidate-not-tulsi-on-why-democrats-keep-losing-n2183724?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=15803c7fc8c68b6fd1f0a5e7f4b59fc49df45d48335d4339ad60f7b0a0c7404d&lctg=28668535

So Much for Compassion: Homelessness Skyrocketed Under Biden, Democrats

So Much for Compassion: Homelessness Skyrocketed Under Biden, Democrats

AP Photo/Eric Risberg

Aren't the Democrats supposed to be the compassionate ones? The ones who care about the unfortunate, the downtrodden, the castoffs of society? Aren't the Democrats the ones who claim to want to help? 

Well, it appears that this depends on how you define "help." Because homelessness has skyrocketed under Democrats and the Biden administration, particularly in the last year.

“No American should face homelessness, and the Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring every family has access to the affordable, safe, and quality housing they deserve,” HUD Agency Head Adrianne Todman claimed in a statement.

Nine out of the 10 states with the highest rate of homelessness were states run by Democrats.

California and New York have the largest populations of homeless people in the country and their homelessness rate (48 per 10,000 in CA and 81 per 10,000 in NY) is significantly higher than the U.S. national average (23 per 10,000).

Almost all, yes, under Democrat jurisdictions. Granted, California has other things to attract the indigent, like a climate that largely precludes freezing to death on the sidewalk. The same can't be said for places like Minneapolis or even Anchorage, which, yes, has its homeless population and routinely loses some of them to the weather every winter. But why this sudden explosion when these deep-blue cities and states have been deep-blue for some time?

In a phrase: Illegal immigration.

Robert Greenway, Director at the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation, posted on X: “The Biden administration’s policies allowing millions of illegal immigrants into our country and provided them shelter has turned its back on the citizens they are responsible for.”

Millions have poured into the country under Joe Biden. Many of them are now living in hotels and apartment buildings, their rents paid by American taxpayers, while Americans are on the streets. What housing isn't occupied is more expensive because of this influx; supply and demand being a harsh and inscrutable mistress.


See Related: Shining a Spotlight on the Victims of Kamala Harris' California

'Ticking Time Bomb': Volunteers Cleaning Up Seattle Homeless Encampment Discover Propane Tanks Amid Trash


There are other problems. Homelessness is all too often a result, not a cause - a result of addiction, alcoholism, or mental illness. The legacy media love to bombard us with images of an innocent young mother, down on her luck, sleeping in her car with her three children, but that's not the face of homelessness in the United States nearly so much as is the addict or lunatic (or both) shooting up on the sidewalk and then dropping a deuce in front of some business's entry.

Both of these issues - the mass influx of illegals and the tolerance of homeless addicts and crazies - can be, nay, laid at the feet of Democrats and the Biden administration.

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/12/28/so-much-for-compassion-homelessness-skyrocketed-under-biden-democrats-n2183697?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=15803c7fc8c68b6fd1f0a5e7f4b59fc49df45d48335d4339ad60f7b0a0c7404d&lctg=28668535?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=15803c7fc8c68b6fd1f0a5e7f4b59fc49df45d48335d4339ad60f7b0a0c7404d&lctg=28668535?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Return to Warfighting: Donald Trump Can and *Should* Reshape the Pentagon As He Pleases

Return to Warfighting: Donald Trump Can and *Should* Reshape the Pentagon As He Pleases

(Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Of all the tasks President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to take on in his new term, reforming and restoring our military may be one of the biggest. The decline of our armed forces has arguably been going on since the end of the Cold War and Bill Clinton's "Peace Dividend," and has been accelerating under Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Donald Trump has the chance to set things aright - and when it comes to the Pentagon, he has the power to do it. The President of the United States has among his constitutionally-defined duties Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces, and all officers of those armed forces serve at the pleasure of the president.

The question is, how will this president wield that power?

There has been speculation that President-elect Donald Trump could create an outside board to review the performance of senior military leaders, but he doesn’t have to in order to reshape the Pentagon in his image.

Leaders of the U.S. military serve at the pleasure of the president, and once Trump is inaugurated next month, he will have the power to relieve anyone he chooses. He is seemingly prepared to rectify the mistakes of his first administration by putting in place loyalists who are committed to carrying out his decisions without pushback.

“We all serve at the pleasure of the president,” Pentagon deputy spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told reporters in November.

The president has this power, of course. But these decisions shouldn't be made primarily on personal loyalty; the oath every servicemember takes is to the Constitution, first and foremost. But yes, Trump can and should appoint people who are going to restore our armed services to what they are supposed to be - warfighters.

Pete Hegseth, Trump's choice for Secretary of Defense, points out one of the problems, the Washington Examiner reported (linked above):

Warning: coarse language

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s selection to lead the Pentagon, specifically said Brown should get fired due to his support of diversity initiatives, which Hegseth and other conservatives argue have come at the expense of the military’s lethality.

“First of all, you gotta fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs,” Hegseth said on the Shawn Ryan podcast shortly before Trump nominated him to be the next secretary of defense. “Any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever, that was involved in any of the DEI woke s***, has got to go. Either you’re in for warfighting, and that’s it. That’s the only litmus test we care about.”

This is key. The military is not a jobs program. It's not a social laboratory to see if any person with the neurosis du jour can somehow wear the uniform, even though they are non-deployable and essentially useless in a fight. The military is essential to the survival of a nation, and if maintaining a military that can fight and win, there can be no considerations other than warfighting. Every military member, from the newest privates just out of their initial entry training to the Joint Chiefs, should be evaluated on their ability to carry out their functions under fire.

We don't need an outside board for that.


See Related: 'We're Going to Get Hit' - China Expert Issues Dire Warning

Yikes: Pentagon Spox Makes Shocking Announcement - 'Recently Learned' There Are More US Troops in Syria


In (probably) the 5th century BC, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus wrote:

Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior and he will bring the others back.

We need warriors. We need fighters. We need to find the men who can be that one, the one that is a warrior, and encourage and promote them. We need our military to be trained and equipped to handle any threat. While we should only engage our military when there is a compelling United States interest involved, when we do deploy, the bad guys should be wetting themselves in abject terror from the moment the first American private steps off the first airplane. The only focus of our military must be to close with and destroy the enemy by fire, maneuver, and shock effect.

That should be Donald Trump's focus as Commander in Chief.

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/12/28/trump-can-and-should-reshape-the-pentagon-as-he-pleases-n2183685?utm_source=rsafternoonbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Thursday, January 2, 2025

We Can Never Know How Evil These People Were

We Can Never Know How Evil These People Were

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

As those whom the media have protected may finally be exposed for their actions, we might start to get a glimpse of how evil certain people have been both at home and abroad.

Joseph Stalin was a mass murderer. He was also, unfortunately for humanity, a fairly smart guy. He made many observations such as it does not matter who votes but rather who counts the ballots. Or when pressed to get the Pope to come out against the Nazis, he asked how many divisions the Pope had available to fight. One of Stalin’s more famous comments was “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.” There is absolutely no way to know how many people Joe Stalin,  Adolph Hitler or Chairman Mao killed. If one searches for the number, he might find quite a broad range, plus or minus a couple million. There is no way to know how evil these people were. We may know a great deal but we will never have a final accounting.

During Stalin’s reign, much of the Western intellectual set and the press warbled on about the wonderful Workers Paradise that was the Soviet Union. They knew of Stalin’s brutal actions in Ukraine and the resulting famine, but they would not report it. It was not until Nikita Kruschev denounced his predecessor that a green light was given to the New York Times and other newsrooms to report about the gulags, starvation, show trials, and summary executions. The press was rooting for Stalin and the anti-Capitalistic system for as long as they could. When the jig was up, they decided to try something new: report the news.

As the Trump transition is only a few weeks away, will we have a similar national experience of finding out more about the damage that Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Tony Fauci, Bill Gates and others protected by the press did? There are many things we know, in part due to websites like this one and the newly freed X social media juggernaut. But still, there is a good deal that we don’t know—and may never know. I remember that when Obama ran for the presidency for the first time, the LA Times said that it had a video of a younger Obama speaking with a known Israel-hating professor. They said that they would never let the video see the light of day. But isn't it their job to report the news? Aren’t they supposed to help us better understand the world in which we live? No. Their sole job is to protect the system that they have bought into. And that system may be going under when Donald Trump raises his right hand and once again swears to uphold the Constitution.

Can we ever know how much money Hillary Clinton directed to the Clinton Foundation in return for favors from the sitting secretary of state? How about the Bidens? We have seen snippets of their corruption through former business partners and of course the Hunter laptop. Can we know how much money they received and from whom? Do we know everything they did for the advancement of their partners’ interests at the expense of American needs and advantage? We will never know all of the details, even if there is a special counsel. The same is true for Barack Obama. We know from a hot mic that he promised Vladimir Putin to be more “flexible” after the 2012 election. He sent pallets of money to the mullahs to help them continue their terror activities. But can we ever know how many individuals and companies suffered because of the actions of Obama and his coterie? How many companies fired employees as federal monies were directed to favored green losers? How much of our tax money was wasted on trash companies only because the owners or investors gave a lot of money to the Obama or Biden campaigns? Like with Covid, we will never have an accurate number of those damaged and how many trillions destroyed.

And as for Covid, will we ever have a complete report on the damage caused by Tony Fauci and his chums at the NIH and big pharma? How many young men have heart troubles because we were lied to about the safety of the mRNA vaccines? How many children today are way, way back in their education and development because for the 1% chance that they might get sick, they needed to stay home and lose their future? Can anyone say how many firms went out of business because of the fake six-foot rule? How many died because available treatments were swept away in order to make way for the mRNA vaccines and mammoth profits? I may not agree with Bobby Kennedy, Jr. on every subject, but one thing that I have found is that he always brings the receipts. He showed that Fauci and company had to get rid of any possible Covid treatment in order to allow for an emergency approval of the experimental treatments. Then, when the pandemic had passed, we started to see that some of those banned treatments actually worked, while the usefulness of the mRNA vaccines has a bigger and bigger question marker after it.

The Pentagon went all in on DEI, and how many soldiers died? How did the failures there lead to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza? How many promising officer candidates stayed out of the armed forces in order not to swear an oath to a guy wearing a dress? Can our fighting forces be brought back up to snuff quickly enough to meet the global challenges of China, Russia and a changing Middle East?

None of what the left did could have taken place without the specific aid of the bureaucracy and the media—including social media. The FBI went from the premier law enforcement agency to a Stasi-like enforcer. Talk about trans surgeries for minors on Facebook and win a visit from two plainclothes agents. The media also had to make Nancy Pelosi’s stock riches disappear, for risk that we might notice that she and many others in Congress were becoming fabulously wealthy with their exemption from insider trading laws. Who could forget Twitter closing the account of anyone who dared to share a completely accurate description of Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents? We are currently experiencing the bureaucracy and the media working to convince us that millions of unvetted immigrants and strange drones in the skies are no big deals. Tony Blinken ran out and rented 51 former intelligence hotshots, who had sworn their allegiance to the United States. to lie and say that Hunter’s laptop was invented in Putin’s living room. They have not apologized for bamboozling the American people, and some of them are proud of what they did. Stalin would give them a kiss on the forehead: never apologize for your more unseemly actions.

The return of Donald Trump and the changing of the guard at the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Pentagon and elsewhere will hopefully have two positive effects. One is to get those bodies once again focused on serving the American people and advancing American (not Democratic) interests. And finally, maybe with new people in place who have the power of investigation and declassification, we will start to get a glimpse of how evil, narrow minded, selfish, and destructive the Obama-Pelosi-Biden-Donors mafia truly was.

There was a story in the early 1990’s of a young East German couple who protested against American nuclear weapons in Europe. When the USSR fell and people were allowed to see their state files, the woman was flummoxed to learn that her long-haired hippie husband was a Stasi informant on her. I would not be surprised if we learn of similar acts of betrayal by many of those who ran the country for the past sixteen years. 

https://townhall.com/columnists/alanjosephbauer/2024/12/28/we-can-never-know-how-evil-these-people-were-n2649631?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Politico Can Suddenly Define 'Woman' Again As They Warn SCOTUS Trans Ruling Could Harm Women's Equality

Politico Can Suddenly Define 'Woman' Again As They Warn SCOTUS Trans Ruling Could Harm Women's Equality

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Oh, look: the media can define what a 'woman' is again. It's a Festivus miracle!

The Supreme Court recently heard a case about the Tennessee bill blocking 'gender-affirming care' for minors, and it did not go well for the pro-trans crowdAt all.

It's a common sense bill: lawsuits are being filed against doctors and organizations who perform such 'care' on minors and this writer believes this is only the tip of the iceberg. 

It's likely SCOTUS will uphold the ban and Politico wants us to know preventing trans activists from mutilating children might harm women's equality. Because reasons:

Schoenbaum writes:

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what is likely to be the term’s blockbuster case, United States v. Skrmetti. The case considers the constitutionality of state laws that ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. While the case itself addresses only a law from Tennessee, 26 states have passed similar laws that will be affected by the outcome.

A blanket ban on such care risks devastating effects for those youth who need it. But as the argument made clear, that is not all that is at stake. The case is also about women’s rights, and a fundamental legal principle that helped to secure them: Courts should be skeptical of laws that discriminate on the basis of sex.

These people -- including at least one of the Supreme Court Justices -- can't define what a 'woman' is, but now they're worried women will lose rights if we can't sterilize children?

Please.

Also, this is precisely the point Alito made that wrecked the pro-trans argument: rights are based on immutable characteristics.

Being a woman is an immutable characteristic.

Being trans -- e.g. gender fluid -- means it's not an immutable characteristic.

So women will continue to enjoy equal protections because they are women.

Also this: the Biden administration pushed to re-write Title IX to give men who 'identify' as women access to women's sports and spaces and punish women who speak out against it.

THIS.

'Gender-affirming care' is really radical conversion therapy.

It's really this simple.

A reckoning is coming for those who pushed it, too.

All. The. Lawsuits.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Yes, it will be.

All of this.

Heh.

You cracked the code!

Absolutely insane.

https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2024/12/27/politico-trans-scotus-case-could-end-womens-equality-n2405763?utm_source=twdailyamvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl