The latest in our series of posts that will not surprise any person who has been paying attention.

Today’s installment comes a post from Robert Spencer’s Jihad’s Watch on a case in England from this story in the Indian Express

An Indian-origin Islamist activist facing trial on terrorism charges skipped bail and fled the country with his family on Wednesday, headed through Paris to the Islamic State, British media have reported. The escape, first revealed by The Daily Mail, came after Abu Rumaysah failed to surrender his passport, a condition of his bail, and has led to opposition charges of police incompetence.

Seriously, they didn’t get the passport first before they let him out on bail?  Well it must be because he wasn’t charged with anything series lie inciting terrorist, oh wait….

Born Siddhartha Dhar, to a family Indian diplomatic sources in London told The Indian Express was of Bihar-Bengal origin, Abu Rumaysah had been arrested in September along with nine others, on charges of inciting terrorism, as part of an ongoing investigation of the London-based pro-jihadist group al-Muhajiroun.

Well nobody finds this more unexpected that Robert Spencer who writes…

He was forbidden to leave the country; Britain wants to keep its jihadis. But he eluded authorities, which is no doubt very easy to do in Clueless Britannia, and fled to the Islamic State. But not to worry, Abu Rumaysah, if you have “good intentions,” you can come back whenever you wish and be showered with goods by the Ministry of Appeasement.

The real question what is the source of this story’s place in the “Unexpectedly Chronicles”, that a supporter of Jihad in the west flouts law or that a bureaucracy is this inefficient?

FYI have you seen Robert Spencer’s latest book?

Or perhaps some of his other ones?

Hey Christmas is coming so give the gift of being informed

or you can just hit DaTipJar and give that gift to yourself every day.

Olimometer 2.52
If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said on Meet the Press Sunday when asked about a 2016 presidential run, “we are praying about this.”

Governor Jindal remains fairly popular in Louisiana overall, but there are many who are not so enchanted with him.  In a recent forum with the 6th District Congressional candidates, Jindal received a mediocre 5.6 out of 10 rating.  Staunch conservatives have been disgruntled with Jindal for several years now, often criticizing his constant out-of-state travel which has been seen as a clear indication of his intention to run for president in 2016.  His frequent absences from the state prompted a line of “Where in the World is Bobby” merchandise.

In 2008, Governor Jindal approved a huge legislative pay raise, breaking a campaign promise to do no such thing; he refused to veto the bill because he might need their help later, he said.  After a huge public outcry (so drastic that people were ripping off their Jindal bumper stickers and mailing them back to him), Governor Jindal caved in and did in fact veto the pay raise.

In another move that raised the ire of conservatives, shortly after his re-election, Governor Jindal came out in support of Louisiana Democrat John Alario for President of the State Senate.  Alario had served in the Louisiana House since 1972 as a Democrat but when he was term-limited in 2007 he decided to switch parties and run for the Senate as a Republican.  All he wanted was to serve as president of both chambers and it didn’t make any difference to him what party designation he held.  In this case, it was politically expedient to switch to Republican so that’s what he did.

Senate President John Alario, the longest-serving Louisiana state legislator, said he changed to Republican because he wanted to be Senate president and he couldn’t get the backing of Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal as a Democrat. Also, his new larger Senate district was redder than his smaller House district.

Governor Jindal’s huge flip-flop earlier this year on Common Core stunned even his closest advisers.  Jindal had lobbied for Common Core and had seemed committed to the initiative, but suddenly, as 2016 looms closer and public opinion turned against Common Core, Jindal reversed his position, prompting some harsh criticism from NOLA’s James Varney:

Politics makes strange bedfellows, to use a well-worn phrase. But the only one jumping from bed to bed here is Jindal. Regardless of what one thinks about those under the respective covers, it’s not a pretty picture.

All this is just to say that national conservative leaders and even some high profile talk radio folks seem to be under the impression that Governor Jindal is the great hope for the future of conservatism, but it might be wise to note that the good Governor can be as politically squishy as anyone else in the business and he may not be all that they believe.

Governor Jindal might be very, very good in a cabinet position working to unscramble and eradicate Obamacare, but as a presidential hopeful, probably not the best choice.


Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

I had to laugh when I saw this at Twitchy:

It produced some interesting exchanges such as this one:

Meanwhile at the same time that Landrieu is trying to run from her base by pretend she is something she is not Barack Obama is running toward his by being what he is:

Obama has pledged to use his executive powers to alter the immigration system before the end of the year, though it remains unclear exactly when he will act. He has asked senior aides and Cabinet secretaries to present him with options but has not formally huddled with them to make a final decision, according to administration officials.

This has produced a lot of shock of argument from the right and talk of a big fight, with many figures arguing that the president is making a huge mistake by ignoring the will of the electorate.  Why can’t they be more like Mary Landrieu & try to pivot toward the electorate.

They have it exactly backwards.

Not in terms of policy, the idea of a mass amnesty is a horrible policy that is going to hurt the country tremendously for years to come, and both the building of the Keystone pipeline and defending life iar the right things to do.

But politically the President has it exactly right and Mary Landrieu has it wrong

Absolutely nothing he may do is likely to expand his popularity among the people who just rejected his agenda and after six years of president Obama in office it’s highly unlikely he’s going to earn any new followers among the general public.

Politically The only thing he can do is to play to his base that has stuck with him, and since said base, and while some of his media base would like to play up to the candidates running in 2016 they are still afraid of the race or the sex cards being played on them.

The President may not have any gumption in dealing with Putin or Syria, but when it comes attacking his political foes he’s a tiger. This is exactly the type of thing that’s necessary for him to be relevant not only in terms of the remainder of his term but in terms of the next presidential election. Bill Clinton is right:

He also said Obama should maximize his pulpit and not give in to being a “lame duck,”

Mary Landrieu on the other hand is making a mistake.

Now in fairness to the senator from Louisiana she is in a horrible position. Her odds of winning a runoff in a red state where President Obama is highly unpopular are long to begin with and her opponents are smelling blood in the water.

If she had been given proper support from Harry Reid over the last 18 months she might have had time to separate herself from the White House and be in a better position, but with only a few weeks to go she doesn’t have that luxury. She has no good options, only a series of longshot options and her best longshot option is to completely energize the base, that is the black vote.

She needs to go whole hog for Obama, she has to remind every single person that she ever pulled a sting for, crooked or straight of every single favor she ever did for them and bluntly tell them their choice is simple, someone who will pay off and someone who won’t.

Running as pro-life isn’t going to win a single pro-life voter any more than Scott Brown running as pro-choice was going to win a single abortion friend while going after positions dear to her base is only likely to prompt them to stay home in a race they figure is lost anyway.

In the public service business you have to decide if you want to be a statesman or a politician. It’s kinda late for either Obama or Mary Landrieu to pretend to be a statesman so they might as well be a politician who plays to win.

Speaking of winning the only way I can end this year a winner is if you consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52
If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.