After contemplating the previous blog more extensively, I have come to a realization. Let’s consider an activity at which I am poor – card houses. Take a deck of cards and place a couple of cards with one side touching and form a “v”. Next place another card on top of the “v”. This is the most basic structure, and the limit of my building abilities with cards. Above this level, I lose to gravity. My best alternative is to utilize tape or other external support to hold the cards as the height increases.

Jack is building his card house and Jill comes over and offers a mild gust of wind via her returning diaphragm. (She blew it over). Jill terrorized his structure. Jack now has the choice on how to respond to the situation. He can rebuild the structure as previously done without the slightest notice that Jill had been there, attack Jill in defense of his building, or rebuild with additional supports in place to ward off future attacks. There are other possibilities, but I think these three will suffice.

The comparison between the tea-party and the occupy movements offer quite a contrast of how diverse groups of individuals express their displeasure with the current political scene. On the one hand, there is a lawful gathering of people expressing their desire to maintain the old constitutional principles and behaving themselves admirably. On the other hand are individuals disobeying the law, committing egregious acts, and demanding that the original principles of our country be abolished. The wake of the occupy movement required massive restoration hours. When one uses the term terrorist, the latter destructive actions come to mind, I believe, for most. However, in the realm of philosophy, terrorism can produce an entirely different application. (For those poo-pooing my characterization of terrorism to the occupy movement, consider the experience of the women huddled in a tent hoping for dawn and a lessened chance of rape)

The left has produced quite a list of lies which get repeated constantly and consistently throughout media, entertainment, education, and politics. The presentation of these assertions is similar to the card house previously mentioned. We traditional constitutional believing citizens come by and like Jill, blow a breath of truth on the card house causing it to fall flat. The responses resulting thereby are similar to Jack and his house. These would consist of: anger, denial, further falsehoods to prop up the walls again, attacks on anyone providing truth, and removal of evidence of the falsehoods.

Let’s see the evidence of the conversations related to Benghazi. How about showing reports on the discussions leading to release of weapons in Fast and Furious. There is a report on global warming showing the falsehoods presented in the most basic initial graphs of the hockey stick. What happens to anyone mentioning this information? There are a plethora of additional examples, but I believe the point has been made. Philosophically speaking, when one of us comes and points truth, it is the same – to them – as muslims killing 3000 people. From that point of view, I am proud to be a terrorist.