Post-election bumper sticker

To paraphrase Abbie Hoffman, “steal this bumper sticker”



The Presidency No One Can Get Behind

In 2012, the Tea Party said Romney was not “their type of candidate”, didn’t vote for him, and got Obama re-elected.

For 2016, the people that the Tea Party crossed, sometimes referred to as “RINO’s”, are saying Trump is not their kind of candidate and won’t vote for him.

The Tea Party members and those that think along the same lines are saying, “this is not fair”.

To them “fair” means not getting their way and sound no better then a Dem whining like a spoiled 13 yr old trying to get their way without earning it.

Just as Obama’s arrogance created the Tea Party, the Tea Party has created a backlash with the arrogance of the Tea Party failing to support Romney and living up to their promise of getting rid of Obama.

Trump keeps running a bluff of running as an independent and the RINO’s are calling that bluff and saying better anyone but Trump, even Hillary, and it’s not a bluff and Trump knows it and you can sense his desperation, his cry of, “this is not fair”.

The ironic part is how many Dems don’t want Hillary and they will have a choice of supporting Hillary or Trump. The devil must be laughing his ass off. God is on God’s side and God decides what part we play in God’s plan and no one is immune.

It is all people dealing with people and what goes around comes around . . . . and that is fair. 

Radical Islamic Terrorism

Headline- Cruz: Can’t Win War Against Our Enemies If Obama ‘Unwilling’ to Say the Words ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’

This is one of those arguments about semantics, so to narrow the point of contention, I limit it to an American view.

An extremist is one who, within the boundaries of their own country seeks to destabilize and take over control of the country. The best example of this is Iran

A terrorist is one who goes outside the boundaries of their country to intimidate other nations to force a change of attitude. The 9/11 attacks are an example of that.

So the goal is the determining factor and in some cases, like the Oklahoma City bombing, a person can be both an extremist and a terrorist. In fact it could be argued that to be a terrorist you have to be an extremist, but not necessarily the other way around.

There is this explanation of what a foreign power is and to be an agent of, which a person trying to join ISIS would be violating (section B, 2). To accuse people of terrorism for wanting to help and fight with ISIS is not terrorism, it is not even sedition or treason as long as their actions are not directed at America.

Section 3 could be quite unconstitutional because while not vague is overly broad.

So while Pres Obama is criticized for not calling a spade a spade, that is not true. What he is doing is the sin of omission, as in, telling the truth but not the whole truth. Yes, America has an ongoing fight with extremists, which Pres Obama has admitted. But what he fails to say is that these people are motivated by religion and that they carry the fight to our shores in the form of extremism.

Cause and effect and the president only wants to deal the effect, not the cause, and as long as that goes on, the cause goes on.