A Democrat candidate for a US House seat in Georgia has failed to win a special election that the national media were portraying as a sign that president Trump is unpopular and would bring down the Republican party.
Jon Ossoff would have gone directly to Washington if he had won 50% of the overall vote in the April 18 “jungle primary” in a congressional district that has been conservative for decades. Newt Gingrich once held the seat.
This type of primary eliminates two separate party primaries and puts the election up for a straight vote if one candidate reaches 50%. But now, with Ossoff falling short, Ossoff and the top Republican vote-getter Karen Handel will meet in a June runoff that Handel is expected to win easily.
More than $8 million flowed into Ossoff’s campaign from all over liberal America. But after intense door-to-door and media campaigning on behalf of Ossoff by angry and energized Democrats, and with celebrities sticking their noses into the race for Ossoff, he did not reach 50%. This is a major embarrassment for Democrats who focused national attention on the race.
In short, Trump won again even though the Republican vote was split among 11 candidates.
This race also should be seen through the lens of contemporary conservative politics. Trump is not necessarily popular among conservatives. He alienated conservatives during the primaries and again after the health-care bill failed to pass by speaking poorly of them for not supporting the bill. So he should not necessarily be considered strong in this suburban Atlanta district, which he won by only 1 point in November.
Second, Trump has been subjected to 21 months of intense 24/7 Trump bashing in the media and Ossoff still could not win.
Third, Ossoff ran as a somewhat conservative Democrat in order to get votes. He is not conservative.
This election would have been touted as a “Scott Brown moment” for Republicans if Ossoff had won. In January 2010 Republican Scott Brown won the US Senate seat that had been held for 47 years by Democrat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. That election was seen as a major blow to Obama.
Now here is today’s main commentary:
We all know about political correctness and radical Islam. Obama wouldn’t even utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism” since terrorism to Obama and Democrats does not really exist, is not serious, does not involve Muslims, and is infinitely less threatening than, say, ‘climate change’ or president Donald Trump.
Obama went even further. There is a story farther down in this commentary about a gentleman named Phil Haney and a terrorist database that he built over many years, that Obama ordered to be destroyed. (Note: Haney said on April 19 that the database is in the hands of Congress. It should be retrieved by order of president Trump.)
Democrat negligence goes back decades. In 1995 the Clinton administration built a political “wall” between FBI and CIA. If this “wall” had never existed these two agencies would have been cooperating and 9/11 never would have happened.
We also know that most terrorists in both the US and Europe have in some way or another been known to security officials, but nothing is done about them because our security agencies have been heavily infiltrated by the pro-Islamic left.
Example: The Fort Hood terrorist was well-known to US Army officials as a radical Islamist but nothing was done about him out of fear of offending his Muslim sensibilities.
Or this: The Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a Muslim immigrant who was not a US citizen, had been interviewed by FBI several years before the attack, about a visit he made to a terror enclave in Russia. But he was never deported, held or followed up on, and then in 2013 he waltzed into the marathon crowd with a huge backpack loaded with a pressure cooker bomb.
Now we have continuing efforts on the part of modern-day Democrats to further hamper the War on Terror. Here are excerpts from a recent article by Paul Sperry in the New York Post about new rules in New York City towards terrorism. Each excerpt is followed by a Nikitas3.com comment:
Sperry writes: The New York Police Department has had a stellar track record of protecting the city from another 9/11, foiling more than 20 planned terrorist attacks since 2001. But some worry the department is losing its terror-fighting edge as it tries to please Muslim grievance groups. Last year, for instance, it censored an anti-terror handbook to appease offended Muslims, even though (the handbook) has accurately predicted radicalization patterns in recent “homegrown” terror cases. Rank-and-file NYPD officers, detectives and even intelligence and counterterrorism units are officially barred now from referring to the handbook or the scientific study on which it was based.
Nikitas3.com comment: So there you go. It is now much more likely that there will be another attack in New York.
Sperry writes: “The (anti-terror handbook) was extremely accurate on how the radicalization process works and what indicators to look for,” said Patrick Dunleavy, former deputy inspector general of the New York state prisons’ criminal-intelligence division, who also worked with the NYPD’s intelligence division for several years. Mayor de Blasio agreed in January 2016 to purge the remarkably prescient police training guide “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” to help settle a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Muslim groups who claimed the NYPD’s anti-terror training discriminated against Muslims.
Nikitas3.com comment: DeBlasio is a far-left mayor. This is how left-wing politicians and activist groups like ACLU use the courts to challenge our Constitutional freedoms and our right to defend ourselves against terrorists and even against domestic criminals. Remember the fundamental narrative of the socialist/communist left: The criminal is always right.
Let us hope that the handbook is still online somewhere, and that police can read it there.
Sperry writes: Written 10 years ago, the seminal (police department) report detailing the religious steps homegrown terrorists take toward radicalization is now more relevant than ever, with recent terror suspects closely following those steps. But in 2007, the same year the study was released, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) organized a protest against it, complaining it “casts suspicion on all US Muslims.” Even though federal law enforcement has long-shunned CAIR as a suspected terrorist front organization, “groups like CAIR were insistent on having it removed, and de Blasio caved into them,” Dunleavy said.
Nikitas3.com comment: No surprise. When we give in to bad people we get 9/11 and Paris and San Bernardino and Brussels. And on and on. President Trump is now turning this around.
It was under Obama and Hillary Clinton and the socialists in Europe that our national security left us especially exposed to terrorism. Look at this story from Infowars.com about the Pulse nightclub killer in Orlando, Florida of June 12, 2016:
Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. shut down an investigation into the mosque (that) Orlando killer Omar Mir Siddique Mateen attended because it “unfairly singled out Muslims.” The Fort Pierce (Fla.) Islamic Center, where Mateen worshipped several times a week, was under investigation by both the FBI and DHS as early as 2011 for ties to a worldwide Islamic movement known as Tablighi Jamaal which was linked to several terrorist organizations.
But the investigation was shut down under pressure from the Clinton-run State Dept. and DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office out of fear of offending Muslims, according to recently retired DHS agent Philip Haney.
Said Haney: “The FBI had opened cases twice on him, and yet they found no evidence to charge him; it means they didn’t go through the same basic, analytical process that I went through over a three- or four-hour period in which I was able to link the mosque to my previous cases.” In other words, the FBI had limited options at stopping Mateen because it was ordered to back off its investigation into his mosque.
Left-wing and socialist governments never want to crack down because they are in a strange-bedfellows alliance with radical Islam. They are more worried about offending Muslims than defending their own citizens against terrorism.
Even Adolph Hitler admired Islam. Dominic Green wrote in the Wall Street Journal on January 16, 2015:
“It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.
Now look at this from the Daily Mail newspaper and website in Britain shortly after the December 2, 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, California, USA, also about Phil Haney:
A founding member of (US) Department of Homeland Security says a database he spent years creating could have helped stop the San Bernardino terror attack, before (the database) was destroyed by (US) federal officials. Phil Haney, who investigated terror groups in the wake of 9/11, claims he investigated two groups with links to terror killers Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik as far back as 2012. If he had been allowed to continue his probe, (Haney) claims, it would have flagged the pair to the security services, and may have stopped them killing 14 people and injuring 21 in California last week. However, he says government civil rights officials destroyed the information he collected over fears he was unfairly profiling Muslims, investigated him, and then stripped him of his security clearance.
Thus we can see what happens to people who investigate terrorism and expose bad actors. Just look at what happened to Phil Haney, who wrote a book appropriately describing the War on Terror under Democrats. It is called See Something, Say Nothing
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)