So yesterday Donald Trump just went ahead and essentially accused the President of the United States with being an Islamic terrorist sympathizer. Sure, why not?

Courtesy of Guardian: 

“He doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other,” Trump told Fox News Channel’s morning show. 

“We’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart or he’s got something else in mind,” he added, for good measure. “And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot – they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable.” 

This is no random brain fart from the great orange one. He took the same line to NBC’s Today show, saying: “Well, there are a lot of people that think maybe he doesn’t want to get it.”

Richard Wolffe, who wrote the article for the Guardian, pointed out the flaw in Trump's characterization: 

Just to be clear: we’re talking about the same president who ordered the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the civilized world’s greatest enemy.

As if that was not enough Trump went on to accuse Hillary Clinton of being too afraid of the President to use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorist" either:  

Hillary Clinton uses the term "radical jihadism" rather than "radical Islamic terrorism" because she is "probably afraid" of President Barack Obama, Donald Trump said Monday. 

“He’s the boss, OK? And she’s probably afraid of him because, obviously, you know, she probably thinks that he has a profound effect over her life."

Trump then added this: 

"He’s protecting her from going to jail, so she’s not going to use it," Trump said. 

"But I bet you that … she would love to use to those words, because almost everybody agrees that those words should be used.” 

Yeah everybody who gets their news from talk radio and Fox News. Which are the same sources who would convince those people of the lie that Hillary Clinton is in danger of incarceration.

When asked about the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" Hillary Clinton responded with this statement:  

"And from my perspective, it matters what we do, not what we say. It matters that we got Bin Laden, not what name we called him," Clinton said. "But if he is somehow suggesting I don't call this for what it is, he hasn't been listening. I have clearly said we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering people. We have to stop them and we will. We have to defeat radical jihadist terrorism, and we will." 

Both terms "mean the same thing," Clinton continued, adding, "And to me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I'm happy to say either, but that's not the point." 

"I have clearly said many, many times we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people. We have to stop them and we will. We have to defeat radical jihadist terrorism or radical Islamism, whatever you call it," Clinton said later on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," reiterating, "it's the same." 

So of course Trump decided to take credit for what he saw as a victory:

I have been hitting Obama and Crooked Hillary hard on not using the term Radical Islamic Terror. Hillary just broke-said she would now use!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2016

You know I am REALLY looking forward to Hillary and the President combining forces to stomp the crap out of this asshole in the next few months.

There are ongoing House Homeland Security Committee hearings on the radicalization of Muslim-Americans. Leading one Congressman to ask why no “hearing on the radicalization of Christians?

Courtesy of Raw Story:

Texas Congressman Al Green (D) says he wouldn’t mind Rep. Peter King (R-NY) repeatedly calling hearings on “radical Islam” if he would also conduct a “hearing on the radicalization of Christians.” 

During a Wednesday House Homeland Security Committee hearing on “The Radicalization of Muslim-Americans,” Green wondered why the chairman had only focused on one religion. 

“If you agree that radicalization exists within all religions to some extent, would you kindly extend a hand into the air,” Green, who is the grandson of a Christian minister, asked the witnesses testifying before the committee. He noted that “all the hands are raised.” 

“I don’t think that most people oppose hearings on radicalization,” the congressman explained. “I do not, not — N-O-T — oppose hearings on radicalization. I do oppose hearings that don’t focus on the entirety of radicalization. And if you agree that we have Christians, as has been mentioned by more than one member, Christians who become radicalized, they become part of Islam and they become radicalized as is being said, why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?” 

He added: “I do think that it is a problem of perception. People who see the hearings and never hear about the hearing on the radicalization of Christianity have to ask themselves, ‘Why is this missing?’ Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country? We don’t have that type of hearing. That’s the problem.”

Okay well THAT has now become my favorite question of the day.

Anybody want to chime in?

BTW for any of you who don't think there are ANY radicalized Christians, I present exhibit A:   

Two burglaries and two fires at Atlanta-area women's clinics and a burglary at the the main office of the Georgia Obstetrical and Gynecological Society are being investigated by the FBI as possible acts of domestic terrorism or civil rights violations. 

Four of the five offices targeted are run by doctors who had voiced concerns — sometimes publicly, sometimes privately — about the so-called fetal pain bill, which shortened to 20 weeks the time frame during which women can have an elective abortion.

Somehow I doubt that THESE  dangerous terrorists were radicalized in a Hindu temple or Jewish Synagogue.