Obama to ISIS, the perfect comparison

There is one ultimate comparison which applies well: Obama to ISIS, the Islamic State.

It really fits. The Islamic state are terrorists at heart, engulfed in an ideology that has no options. I wrote about it in “the struggle we must understand”. Obama is a radical ideologue at heart, whatever else anyone thinks he is. It is only a matter of understanding and knowing that. It’s a fool’s mission to try believing otherwise. He’ll prove you wrong; as ISIS will prove you wrong if you term them anything but evil and radical.

But that is not where it stops. The motive of operation for the terrorists is to provoke and attack anything not aligned with it, or anything that threatens it. That is the nature of the beast. That’s why preemption is the only strategy that can work against it.

With Obama he is all about challenging every other form of power. He believes in radicalism that attacks any of its enemies, by Alinsky tactics. It is pure radicalism. The ends justify any means. Ideology rules. He’s shown contempt for our Constitution and he shows contempt for America. He sees us as the problem and he and his cohorts as the answer. Perception is reality to them. They only need to project whatever they choose. (Islamists are creative at that too)

This is why we now have another problem. Our taking the Senate matters not to Obama. He’s as comfortable without it as with it. His radical means are no match for the process. He does not live under the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, it didn’t matter to him whether Republicans controlled congress. It didn’t matter before and doesn’t now.

In fact, we’ve seen how effective Harry and Nancy were in the minority already. He was looking to defy Congress before while he controlled half of it. Don’t you think he will defy it more having lost control? If he acted like a radical before, he has even more reason to act like a radical now. I think we get that. (whether legislators grasp that or not is a question)

With radical Islamists, they don’t care what percentage they are. Actually, the nature of radicalism is to be effective as one or a small group. They don’t have to win elections either, though they do know how to play the game of democracy. (Egypt) The other part is recruitment is not based on ethics or morality, it is just the opposite with radicalism and ideology. So they have no problem with recruitment, it sounds exciting to some.

Just as the message of progressives is a radical ideology, it sounds attractive to some people. It’s a perfect fit and lends itself to identity groups and academia.(group think)

With both types of radicals, percentage or majority do not matter, they are adept at acting in a small minority by design. (Weather Underground) They base their activism on constantly testing and pushing any boundaries. They use an incremental approach that is constantly probing. They apply tactics to subvert the process, challenge or disrupt it.

All that said, now we can see the problems inherent with Obama occupying one of three branches. Also other radicals within the system, think Lois Lerner, can be effective. They share ideology and don’t require orders or communications. Like terrorist cells, they act on their own or in concert. For Islamists, it is all about ideology. Radical is as radical does.

Clinton may have been a master politician, but Obama is a master of radicalism.

RightRing | Bullright

Danger ahead for Dems

POLITICO poll shows mounting danger for Dems


By ALEXANDER BURNS | 5/19/14 | Politico

President Barack Obama’s job approval slump and voters’ entrenched wariness of his health care law are dogging Democrats ahead of the 2014 midterm elections, and Republicans have captured a lead in the areas home to the year’s most competitive races, according to a new POLITICO poll.

In the congressional districts and states where the 2014 elections will actually be decided, likely voters said they would prefer to vote for a Republican over a Democrat by 7 points, 41 percent to 34 percent. A quarter of voters said they were unsure of their preference.

Among these critical voters, Obama’s job approval is a perilous 40 percent, and nearly half say they favor outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Sixty percent say they believe the debate over the law is not over, compared with 39 percent who echo the president’s position and say the ACA debate has effectively concluded.

Both Obama’s job approval and the partisan ballot matchup are markedly more negative for Democrats in this poll than other national surveys — a reflection of the political reality that the midterm campaign is being fought on turf that is more challenging for Democrats than the nation as a whole.

But none of those issues comes close to approaching health care as a major concern for midterm voters. Nearly nine in 10 respondents said that the health care law would be important to determining their vote, including 49 percent who said it would be very important.

By comparison, only 28 percent said that immigration reform was “very important” to determining their vote, and 16 percent who said the same of male-female income disparity.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/politico-poll-shows-mounting-danger-for-dems-106814.html#ixzz32BzwSwYJ

“Forward” seems to be reverse for Dems.

If elections were held today: 41% versus 34% would vote for Republicans. Even of the 25% who didn’t know which they’d vote for, 21% vs. 16% leaned in favor of Republicans.

And whatever Harry Reid is doing must be working. 😀 Or as Lost in Space said:

Obama Support Group Travels to Bush Library

I was searching for a little political humor, you know, to just take the edge off a little.
And I think I found it. I’ll put a [J] for laugh to make it easier.

Today, Obama went to the Bush library for the dedication. [J] Hard as that was for him. By the way, Bush did not invite Pelosi, Hoyer, or Reid. But apparently Hoyer was miffed.[J]

However, just look at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. All that rush to protest that occurred, even Bill and Hillary declined to go. When they saw the protests, they snubbed her. And Democrats initially blocked the resolution to honor Margaret Thatcher.

Now comes Bush library and they are surprised at not being invited, probably so they could decline anyway? Nevertheless, Obama goes

Hoyer, the Democratic House whip who represents southern Maryland, complained privately to colleagues about the slight earlier Thursday, HuffPost was told. A second House source confirmed the lack of an invitation to Pelosi and Hoyer, and a Reid aide said that the Senate majority leader was not invited. [J]

Rather than all the presidents being an “exclusive club”, Obama said it was more of a “support group”. [J] So now he declares himself a member of a support group. Yea, what nonsense. The guy has not missed one opportunity to blame Bush even for his own failures, and then calls it a “support group”? [J]

Obama said: “When all the living former presidents are together, it is also a special day for our democracy. We’ve been called “world’s most exclusive club and we do have a pretty nice clubhouse, but the truth is our “club” is more like a support group.” The last time we all got together was just before I took office, and I needed that. …because, as each of these leaders will tell you, no matter how much you may think you are ready to assume the office of the presidency, its impossible to truly understand the nature …/.” [J, J, J, J]

Who in the world… or “world’s most exclusive club”… does he think he’s kidding?

I can interpret that support. Obama: “you are all here for me and should support me. I, however, can stab each of you in the back whenever I want. That includes you too, Mr. Jimmy. Now any questions? I didn’t think so…Support on!”

But of course, we know the way it works for the Bastid-in-Chief, everybody needs to support him. How long, he hasn’t decided yet but he’ll let us know. Where is Obama’s contribution of support?

“Support group” [J]– isn’t that the funniest thing you ever heard?

True story though…