Monday, September 29, 2014

Battle Against Islamic State Creates Vital New Alliances

Battle against Islamic State creates vital new alliances


By KARIN LAUB and ADAM SCHRECK

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- On a recent evening, two of Jordan's top pro-al-Qaida ideologues held court on the rooftop of a villa decorated with strings of lights. Sporting shaggy beards and robes, the Muslim preachers whispered to each other and rose occasionally from plastic chairs to greet supporters. It would have been hard to picture such a scene just a few months ago, with Abu Qatada and Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi then being held in Jordanian prisons on security charges. But Jordan's priorities appear to have shifted because of the mounting threat posed by the Islamic State group, an al-Qaida offshoot that has seized large areas of neighboring Syria and Iraq, sending shivers through the kingdom.
Abu Qatada and al-Maqdisi have denounced some of the group's practices as un-Islamic - comments some analysts say have turned the preachers into assets in Jordan's campaign to contain the Islamic State, which is believed to have attracted thousands of followers in the country. Authorities say their release from prison - al-Maqdisi in June and Abu Qatada after an acquittal last week - had nothing to do with politics.
But the clerics' outspokenness points to ways the U.S.-led fight against the group is upending old assumptions in the Middle East. At the core of issue: the Islamic State group is viewed by some regional players as an existential threat, creating an unlikely mix of allies and reshaping regional priorities.
Longtime foes such as the United States and Iran now find themselves fighting a common enemy, as do Iraq's Arabs and Kurds - who rarely agree on much. Squabbling Arab states, such as Qatar and its Gulf neighbors, have at least temporarily put aside their differences in the fight against the militants.
One-time rivals "view the Islamic State through a similar lens, that it represents a threat to their national security interests," said Fawaz Gerges, a London-based expert on Islamic movements.
"This tells you the extent to which the Islamic State has really reconfigured regional security and global security," he added.
The coalition has quickly grown since the U.S. first launched airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq on Aug. 8, followed by bombardments in Syria that began Sept. 21.
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Jordan have participated in attacks in Syria, while Qatar hosts an air base used by the coalition. France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Britain are among European countries contributing to U.S. efforts to hit the Islamic State group in Iraq.
The shakeup of alliances is perhaps most dramatic in Syria, ravaged by a civil war between President Bashar Assad's troops and Sunni Muslim-led rebels, including Islamic State fighters and al-Qaida's local branch, the al-Nusra front.
A year ago, the Obama administration appeared on the verge of striking government targets in Syria after blaming Assad for a deadly chemical weapons attack on rebel-held areas outside Damascus. Now Assad stands to benefit from U.S.-led airstrikes that are hitting some of his most ruthless enemies while, for now, staying clear of his fighters.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, among the most active supporters of the armed opposition seeking to topple Assad, are now part of the coalition that appears to be helping him militarily, even if unintentionally. How long they are willing to do so is unclear.
"The coalition is being held together by American resolve, determination and leadership. But we shouldn't take it for granted," said Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar.
Qatar's participation in the coalition is significant. It has been under mounting political pressure over its backing of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, its ties with Hamas, which fought a 50-day war with Israel this summer, and for not doing more to stamp out private funding for extremist groups.
It now finds itself allied with three Gulf neighbors who pulled their ambassadors from the country earlier this year to protest Qatar's perceived regional meddling and support for Islamists. While the diplomats haven't been formally reinstated, it appears the Islamic State threat is now a more pressing concern.
"This is helping to push the GCC (alliance of six Gulf states) together against the Sunni extremists in Syria," said Theodore Karasik, an analyst at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis.
Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad al-Momani predicted a long fight against the Islamic State militants.
"They have been trying to infiltrate into our borders, and therefore the threat is there," he said. "We will continue until we achieve our objective of degrading and finishing the terrorist organization."
The new counterterrorism fight isn't prompting the Obama administration to ease efforts against other long-term threats to the United States. Washington is still pushing for a nuclear deal with Iran and targeting the financing of Hezbollah and Hamas.
But shifting the priority to destroying the Islamic State group is creating new opportunities for indirect collaboration, even with sworn enemies.
U.S. and Iranian officials have held discussions on counteracting the Sunni extremists, although they deny direct cooperation.
In a sign of the overlap of Iranian and U.S. interests, Iran last week said one of the Islamic Republic's most senior generals and 70 Iranian soldiers helped Kurdish fighters defend Irbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq that has been a focus of the American military. The city is home to a U.S. consulate and offices of numerous Western companies, and the approach of Islamic State militants to its outskirts prompted American airstrikes in August.
Lebanon's powerful, Iranian-backed Shiite Hezbollah militia has used the threat posed by the Islamic State to justify fighting in Syria, alongside Assad's forces. After sending fighters to Syria last year, Hezbollah had faced mounting criticism at home that it was dragging the country into the civil war there.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah now argues that Hezbollah's actions have prevented Islamic State militants from overrunning Lebanon.
The new regional climate also helped refocus Egypt's relations with the West on the issue of terrorism, a conversation President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi appears more comfortable with than Washington's concerns about human rights violations resulting from his domestic crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.
El-Sissi deposed an elected president from the Brotherhood last year and has tried to portray his move against the group as a model for fighting terrorism. Washington remains critical of Cairo, but observers believe the ties between the two are improving.
Some in the Arab coalition say they are engaged in an existential battle.
"What we are fighting is not just a terrorist organization, but the embodiment of a malicious ideology that must be defeated intellectually," the vice president and prime minister of the Emirates, Dubai ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, wrote in an opinion piece Sunday.
"I consider this ideology to be the greatest danger that the world will face in the next decade," he said.
---
Schreck reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writers Bassem Mroue and Diaa Hadid in Beirut, Bradley S. Klapper in Washington and Maggie Michael in Cairo contributed to this report.
More AOL Content:
Colorado man's mug shot is 'happiest ever'
Sneaky move to deter Ferguson investigation

What the hell is Thomas Mills trying to say? This is a curious hatchet job -- paid for by Harry Reid?

Thom Tillis is a man in a hurry. He went from city councilor to North Carolina House speaker in just five years. Four months into his second term as speaker, he was running for U.S. Senate. The man who would hand the Republicans control of the Senate has been a lot of things in a short amount of time. And while he seems to know where he’s going, it’s less clear that he knows what he’ll do once he gets there.


Tillis started his political career as a city councilor in Cornelius, a wealthy suburb of Charlotte. In 2006, after a single term, he upset a Republican incumbent in a primary for a state House seat. Like all freshmen, Tillis arrived in Raleigh as a backbencher, but he quickly impressed his Republican colleagues, who chose him freshman leader. In just his second term, he joined the House GOP leadership as minority whip.
Despite the drubbing Republicans took in North Carolina in 2008, Tillis saw an opportunity and took a gamble. In 2009, he left his job as a $500,000-a-year business consultant and worked tirelessly in the 2010 election to recruit and elect GOP candidates. Safe in his own seat, Tillis crisscrossed the state helping House candidates organize and raise money. The bet paid off when Republicans won control of the House in the 2010 landslide. Tillis impressed enough members and accrued enough favors that he was narrowly chosen speaker over House Minority Leader Skip Stam, a six-term veteran. The more socially conservative Stam became majority leader.

So far, so good, but the writer of this partisan diatribe is just warming up.



The 2011 session of the legislature marked the first time in North Carolina in more than a century that Republicans controlled both houses of the General Assembly. Tillis arrived with ambition and a pocket full of political IOUs but few legislative accomplishments. And while previous speakers, both Democrat and Republican, brought years of experience and relationships to the job, Tillis had only two terms in the House and one in the GOP leadership.
In contrast, his Senate counterpart, President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, spent 10 years in the Senate watching his predecessor, Democrat Marc Basnight, run a disciplined and focused caucus. Berger understood both the formal and informal rules of the legislature and the dynamics that made it work. He also had a veto-proof majority, something Tillis lacked in the House. After six years of quickly climbing the political ladder, Tillis initially seemed to focus on passing legislation and maintaining peace in his caucus. He and Berger appeared to work well together. They held joint press conferences, and most of their legislative priorities aligned.
Tempered by Democratic Governor Bev Perdue and the House Democrats, Tillis and Berger pushed an agenda that would later seem modest. They ended a one-cent sales tax, put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban gay marriage, required counseling before an abortion, cut funding to public schools and universities, and implemented tort reform. Most importantly, they passed a gerrymandered redistricting map that ensured their electoral success in 2012.

 Lots of unnuendo, but no substance. Who trained you to be a liberal propagandist? 

If Tillis put his ambition on hold during the 2011 legislative session, it reappeared in 2012. This time, it caused problems within his caucus and with Berger. Both men were rumored to be looking at Democrat Kay Hagan’s U.S. Senate seat. The pair seemed to be staking out opposing political ground. In a state that had narrowly voted for Obama in 2008, Tillis tried to build his credentials as a moderate. He made compensation for victims of the state’s eugenics program his top legislative priority and supported a measure to expand gambling on the Cherokee reservation in western North Carolina. Members of his caucus publicly criticized him for not holding to conservative principles.
Berger, for his part, established himself as the more conservative leader. He rolled out an education-reform plan that catered to his right flank. The measure took Tillis by surprise and the House delayed most of the education measures. In response, the Senate killed Tillis’s eugenics-compensation package. Tillis and Berger insisted they were still unified on key issues, but the 2012 session left obvious strains in their relationship. Instead of the frequent joint press conferences of 2011, they only appeared together to announce the budget deal.

Move along. Nothing to see here. The writer begins to fish in waters that don't yield the garbage he is looking for. He begins to fantasize.

While Democrats across the country were celebrating Barack Obama’s reelection in 2012, Tar Heel Republicans were consolidating their power. For the first time in more than a century, they controlled all of state government. Former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory beat Democratic Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton to become the first Republican governor in 20 years; Tillis now enjoyed a veto-proof majority in the House.
Theoretically, Tillis and the new governor were natural allies. Both were elected as moderates and both came from Charlotte, a buttoned-down town that’s home to the GOP’s business wing. They were cast in the mold of Jim Martin, another Charlotte moderate who had been North Carolina’s last Republican governor, more than 20 years ago. Both also needed to keep an eye on a statewide electorate. North Carolina had a long history of electing moderates at the top of the ticket. Business-friendly Democrats had held the Governor’s Mansion in part because primaries had forced Republican candidates too far to the right, making it difficult for them to win moderate voters necessary for victory in a general election.

Time's up, Mr. Muckraker. So where's the meat and 'taters?





But if Tillis or McCrory thought they could steer the new legislature down a moderate path, the opening days of the 2013 session must have been a shock. The new batch of jubilant legislators had all the answers and was champing at the bit to put them into practice. Like a conquering army, they hit Raleigh plundering and pillaging. They introduced voter-ID bills, anti-Sharia-law bills, and drug testing for welfare recipients. They “revised” boards and commissions to end some appointments and expand others. They cut taxes for the wealthy and ended the earned-income tax credit for the working poor. They took control of Asheville’s water supply and Charlotte’s airport. They redistricted county commission and school-board districts that were controlled by Democrats. There was no one to stop them.
We won -- fair and square. Retreat back into your hole. This attack piece is full of sound and fury -- signifying nothing. You failed miserably.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Latino advocacy group encouraging voters not to vote Democrat in key swing states

Verne Strickland: This is a wonderful and important development in the intensifying midterm elections, which will shape the future of our America -- led by critical activity in key swing states -- North Carolina included. Presente Action, a Latino force to be reckoned with, is proactively pushing back at Democrats in these states, because they oppose election reform. We need to publicize their efforts and let them know that they are appreciated and considered vital to the conservative GOP cause.

Hell hath no fury like a Latino voter scorned. 
At least, that's the idea.

Fox News Latino


Latino advocacy group encouraging voters not to vote Democrat in key swing states 
 
    Four Senators Targeted by Presente.jpg
  • Presente Action is specifically targeting (left to right) Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H), (top right) Mark Pryor (Ark.), and (lower right) Mary Landrieu (La.), collectively identified by the organization as the "Dirty Four."

A major Latino advocacy group has begun to actively campaign against four Senate Democrats, encouraging Hispanics to not vote blue in midterm elections in key swing states, because they oppose immigration reform.

 Presente Action is specifically targeting Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H), Mark Pryor (Ark.), and Mary Landrieu (La.), collectively identified by the organization as the "Dirty Four."

As first reported by the Huffington Post Latino Voices, Presente cites the senators’ support for a procedural vote last week that would have allowed for a vote on amendments restricting the 2012 Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals policy, and preventing President Barack Obama from using executive action on immigration.

The vote was pushed by Republican Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Ted Cruz of Texas.

The vote never happened. But Latino activists and immigrant advocates viewed the move by the senators as a betrayal by Democrats who were supposed to pass comprehensive immigration reform, as promised by Obama.
"We are sick of politicians playing with our community like we are political pawns," Arturo Carmona, executive director of Presente Action, told Fox News Latino about Latino voters.

 "These Senate Democrats have been willing to throw our community under the bus. On the issue of immigration our community has been lied to once, twice, 10 times, and when you gage the Latino community we are fed up."

Carmona says Presente, which boasts 300,000 members across the nation, is purchasing social media ad buys on Facebook and Google while mobilizing their members to encourage friends and family not to vote for the senators.

"These are the first shots fired," Carmona said, explaining the organization plans to escalate their campaign against the "Dirty Four" as November 4th nears. Other Latino advocacy groups are privately cheering Presente on, even calling them heroes.

The organization says their campaign is not about making sure Latinos stay home come November, rather encouraging people to think twice before casting a ballot for these particular Democrats.

"The Latino community will no longer be about good Democrats and bad Republicans, we need to be a results-oriented community," Carmona said of the need for Latino voters to stop blindly voting Democrat.

But don't confuse Presente's campaign as a get out the Latino vote push for Republicans – they say it is not. Republicans need six more seats in the Senate to claim a 51-49 majority and analysts believe their best hopes to picking up seats are in the "dirty four's" states: Louisiana, North Carolina, Arkansas and, to a lesser extent, New Hampshire. In all four states Latinos make up less than 10 percent of the population.

To put that in perspective, California has close to 40 percent, but Carmona is "confident" the Latino vote could make the difference in elections decided by a "razor-thin margin."

If Presente's campaign is successful, and Republicans become the majority in the Senate, the scenario could conceivably make it more difficult for comprehensive immigration reform to pass.

"We understand the political scenario. We are totally conscious this can be a game-changer," Carmona said.  "We are in a difficult situation but we have to play our hand. Our families are being separated."

Bryan Llenas currently serves as a New York-based correspondent for Fox News Channel (FNC) and a reporter for Fox News Latino (FNL). Click here for more information on Bryan Llenas. Follow him on Twitter @BryanLlenas.
Follow us on twitter.com/foxnewslatino
Like us at facebook.com/foxnewslatino

OBAMA'S ORDERS ARE INSANE -- OUR TROOPS SHOULD REFUSE TO GO TO AFRICA TO FIGHT EBOLA. IT IS A DEATH SENTENCE

OBAMA'S ORDERS ARE INSANE -- OUR TROOPS SHOULD REFUSE TO GO TO AFRICA TO FIGHT EBOLA. IT IS A DEATH SENTENCE

Verne Strickland September 29, 2014

This is hard-scrabble stuff here, friends. And it takes a Laura Ingraham to tackle it and get it out. I believe her charge. Obama is a deeply conflicted and bitter man who blames America and the white man for most of what ails Africa and the global plight of black people. That is sick -- indeed, he is sick -- and what he is proposing to do lacks any rational explanation. Our U.S. military is trained to fight -- to kill enemies of America -- not to face death by a deadly African virus. His orders are bogus, malevolent and vengeful. Our troops should refuse to go.


On her Friday show, radio talker Laura Ingraham offered a critique of President Barack Obama’s use of the U.S. military, particularly as it pertains putting servicemen and women in harm’s way, including in Ebola-stricken regions in western Africa.
  Ingraham questioned the motivations of Obama on using U.S. troops as part of the effort to take on Ebola, suggesting it was out of a resentment for so-called America’s “privilege,” which as she pointed out may stem from “his father's rage against colonialism.”
“You get the sense with President Obama the U.S. military is used not as often to protect America’s interest in the world – national security, the homeland or even our allies,” she explained. “Instead, the military is just another tool in his arsenal to level the playing field, right? I mean, in other words, Africa really deserves more of America's money because we're people of privilege. We're people of great privilege, so we should do what we can, we the American taxpayers, to transfer wealth over to Africa. It's his father's rage against colonialism, as Dinesh D'Souza wrote about, and maybe this is a way to continue to atone for that.”
“I mean, there’s all kinds of things we could do short of sending 3,000 troops there,” she continued. “And frankly, if you’re a left-wing activist in the Saul Alinsky tradition, if a few American military personnel have to be exposed to the Ebola virus to carry out this redistribution of the privileged's wealth, then so be it. But again, given what they do on our border and given what they’re not doing in stopping travel into the United States from affected areas or terrorist countries, I’m just not taking their claims that they’re representing all of our interests over there all that seriously. I think our military is used as a force for quote, ‘global good,’ not necessarily because it is absolutely the most crucial thing they can do for our country.”
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

On her Friday show, radio talker Laura Ingraham offered a critique of President Barack Obama’s use of the U.S. military, particularly as it pertains putting servicemen and women in harm’s way, including in Ebola-stricken regions in western Africa.

Ingraham questioned the motivations of Obama on using U.S. troops as part of the effort to take on Ebola, suggesting it was out of a resentment for so-called America’s “privilege,” which as she pointed out may stem from “his father's rage against colonialism.”
“You get the sense with President Obama the U.S. military is used not as often to protect America’s interest in the world – national security, the homeland or even our allies,” she explained. “Instead, the military is just another tool in his arsenal to level the playing field, right? I mean, in other words, Africa really deserves more of America's money because we're people of privilege. We're people of great privilege, so we should do what we can, we the American taxpayers, to transfer wealth over to Africa. It's his father's rage against colonialism, as Dinesh D'Souza wrote about, and maybe this is a way to continue to atone for that.”
“I mean, there’s all kinds of things we could do short of sending 3,000 troops there,” she continued. “And frankly, if you’re a left-wing activist in the Saul Alinsky tradition, if a few American military personnel have to be exposed to the Ebola virus to carry out this redistribution of the privileged's wealth, then so be it. But again, given what they do on our border and given what they’re not doing in stopping travel into the United States from affected areas or terrorist countries, I’m just not taking their claims that they’re representing all of our interests over there all that seriously. I think our military is used as a force for quote, ‘global good,’ not necessarily because it is absolutely the most crucial thing they can do for our country.”
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Senate polls good news for GOP hopes -- including North Carolina's close Tillis-Hagan battle.


     

Senate polls good news for GOP

ByJAMES HOHMANN | 9/28/14 

CNN/ORC polls released Sunday have the GOP candidate narrowly ahead in a Louisiana runoff and within the margin of error in North Carolina

In the Louisiana primary, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu leads Republican Bill Cassidy, 43 percent to 40 percent among likely voters, with Republican Rob Maness getting 9 percent. Sarah Palin campaigned with Maness Saturday.

(Also on POLITICO: Red-seat Dems fight for survival)
If no one clears 50 percent in November, the top two finishers square off in a Dec. 6 runoff. In a head-to-head matchup, Cassidy wins by 3 points, 50 percent to 47 percent, among likely voters. Landrieu, though, leads by 6 points, 51-45, among the broader sample of registered voters. The divergent numbers highlight the importance of Democratic efforts to boost black turnout, especially for a December runoff.

North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan leads by 3 points, 46 percent to 43 percent, among likely voters, with Libertarian Sean Haugh getting 7 percent.
That’s within the margin of error and comes even though Hagan is seen more negatively than her challenger. While 46 percent hold a positive view of Hagan, 47 percent hold a negative view. Tillis is viewed favorably by 47 percent and unfavorably by 40 percent.
(See more from POLITICO's Polling Center)
Meanwhile, a Des Moines Register poll published in Sunday’s newspaper has Republican Joni Ernst leading by 6 points in the Iowa Senate race, 44 percent to 38 percent.
Democrats scoffed at the Register poll and pushed back by sharing exclusively with POLITICO an internal poll conducted this week that shows a tied race, 42 percent to 42 percent. The Register poll, conducted by Ann Selzer, is considered the gold standard in the Hawkeye State, and it has a good record of anticipating the margin in presidential races.
In the two states surveyed by CNN, President Barack Obama is a drag on the respective Democratic incumbent.
Obama’s approval rating in Louisiana is 37 percent, with 61 percent disapproving, including a remarkable racial disparity. Among whites, Obama’s approval rating is just 17 percent. Among non-whites, it is 76 percent.
(Also on POLITICO: Republicans stop talking tax cuts)
In North Carolina, Obama’s approval is 38 percent, with 58 percent disapproving (26 percent among whites and 75 percent among nonwhites).
Results released by the Des Moines Register thus far did not include the president’s approval rating.
Braley and Ernst are both treading water. He’s viewed favorably and unfavorably by an equal 42 percent, with 16 percent undecided. She’s viewed favorably by 45 percent, unfavorably by 44 percent and 11 percent are undecided.
Ernst has been hammered on television, where Republicans have been outspent. While she and Braley have similar standing at the topline, 29 percent view Ernst “very” unfavorably compared to 22 percent who feel that way about Braley.
(Also on POLITICO: Crunch time for Jeb Bush)
Ernst is up 43 points among rural voters; Braley is up 7 points among city dwellers. Braley and Ernst are tied in the House district he’s represented since 2006.
The Republican has her work cut out for her on appealing to seniors in the home stretch, some of whom are clearly being scared off by ads that accuse her of planning to privatize Social Security. Her weakest performance among any age groups is those 65 and over, where she was up just 1 point.
There are signs of fluidity: 12 percent are undecided, and just under a third of each candidate’s supporters said they still could be persuaded to vote for another candidate.
Ernst leads by 25 points among men (55-30), while Braley leads by 13 points among women (46-33).
The CNN polls show a slimmer gender gap.
Tillis leads among men by 4 points (46-42), while Hagan leads among women by 9 points (49-40). Tillis is up among independents by 1 (49-40) and among whites by 18 points (53-35).
In the head-to-head, Cassidy actually leads among men and slightly among women. His victory is powered by a 71-26 point lead among whites. Even among white women, Landrieu is stuck below 30 percent.
Hagan has led in every single poll since August. North Carolina has slipped down the list of likeliest GOP pick-ups, with Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska all feeling more winnable for GOP strategists.
But Tillis remains in the hunt in the Tar Heel State, especially if he can woo a chunk of those currently backing the Libertarian. To reach those voters, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has cut an ad on his behalf and will travel to the state this week to campaign with him.
The Iowa Poll of 546 likely voters (culled from a larger sample of 800) was conducted Sept. 21-24 by Selzer & Co. and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percent for likely voters.
The Louisiana poll of 866 registered voters and 610 likely voters was conducted Sept. 22-25 by ORC International and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
The North Carolina poll of 860 registered voters and 595 likely voters was conducted Sept. 22-25 by ORC International and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. Thirty percent of the full sample for each CNN poll was reached by cell phone.

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT TILLIS AND HAGAN . . .

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT TILLIS AND HAGAN . . .



 By Verne Strickland   September 28, 2014


Daniel Allan Nance
Sad fact of the matter is that WE do not have a clear or great choice between these two.

Verne Strickland I believe we do.

Jackie Anderson Kohler
Verne Strickland, tel me why I should note for Thom Tillis over Kay Hagan?

Verne Strickland
Hi, Jackie. You know where all the facts are. All I could do is spoon-feed you with everything there is to know. I'll just leave you with this. Kay Hagan, by her published record, is a liberal, a devotee of Barack Obama and Harry Reid, and a serial prevaricator. My friend Thom Tillis, on the other hand, I know to be honorable, trustworthy, a proven leader, and a conservative Christian patriot. You might be able to draw some useful distinctions from these statements. I hope so. God bless you as you make your choice. It's a very important one.

Andy Koeppel
 Jackie- We need to do what we can to remove Reid as majority leader. That is more important than any particular issue.

Mr. President, How Is It NOT Islam?


Kevin McCullough


How do you tie together all of the major terrorist events on American soil since 9/11?
Simple, you study the woven web behind the Moore, Oklahoma beheader Alton Nolen.
He converted to Islam in prison and sat under the influence of imam Suhaib Webb. Webb was connected to the greater Islamic Society of Oklahoma. Webb also had associations with the mosque where the Boston Marathon bombers frequented. Worst of all Suhaib Webb was a confidant of Amwar al-Awlaki, the mastermind of the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11/01. The killer utilized the techniques of ISIS. And the Obama administration immediately labels it "workplace violence."
I know the authorities are having a hard time accurately describing what happened in Moore, but let's break some things down.
1. This attack occurred after Nolen converted to Islam.
2. This attack occurred after sitting under an Islamic Imam's teaching.
3. This attack followed the rejection of Islamic conversion of co-workers.
4. This attack followed an argument about Islam that got him fired.
5. This attack followed an argument governing Islamic practice.
6. This attack followed Nolen's intolerance towards anyone's disagreement concerning the stoning of women (an inherently Islamic practice--as neither Jews nor Christians practice such.)
7. This attack followed the rationale of the Islamic State. (Convert, Flee or Die.)
8. This attack utilized the same methodologies as the Islamic State--beheading.
9. This attack--like 9/11 and Boston--was immediately praised--even by Muslims in the U.S.
10. This attack--like the Ft. Hood massacre--was labeled an incident of workplace violence, even when like Ft. Hood "Allah Akbar" was invoked by the evil doer. (The famous invocation of Islam.)
The first, most immediate, reports about the incident claimed the Islamic Society of Oklahoma was publicly expressing--not remorse for the victim's families, or sorrow for the actions of one of their own.
Nope, the first statement from domestic Muslims discussed fears of violent reprisals.
Which is rich huh?
The evil one comes from their midst, but they are afraid they won't be treated well?
We continue to be told by the administration that we are not at war with radical Islam. The president inaccurately continues to say that be headings, violence, dominance, rape, and murder are not the actions of Islam.
The problem we face however is that our enemy believes they are practicing Islam to its most serious degree. And even if the entire global population of Islam is added up and the radical components of it only consist of 2-3%, that still leaves a few million radicals that will continue to come after the infidels and lop off their heads.
Now that the CIA and the military alert us to the idea that ISIS fighters who had been born in the USA have returned from their battles... Now that the Rochester police arrested the ISIS member in upstate New York... Now that ISIS has set up operations in Ciudad Juarez (across only a river from El Paso Texas...) Now that an ISIS styled beheading took the life of a young man in New Jersey... And now that a Muslim in the heartland carried out an Islamic State style execution on the inferior female infidels in his office... What is it about this activity BEING Islam that we don't get?
The American people KNOW it is Islam. We know Islam teaches these things, and we know that there are millions of radicalized Muslims ready to attack.
It has taken our military's weapons to thwart Islamic terror overseas. In Moore, Oklahoma it took a private gun owner to put down the evil.
What will it take for our President?