Obama’s Legacy!


When Obama took office in January of 2009 The War on Terror had mostly been won with just some minor clean up and the stationing of stabilizing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan left to do. However, Obama, instead of completing the last 5% decided that he didn’t like the result and started a new program that was going to be better on June 4 2009 in Cairo called “A New Beginning.” This new beginning was to become the Arab spring and that misguided debacle is why we are here where we are today. Whether what was done to the world was intentional (the New World Order view) or just ignorance (the multicultural political correctness view) doesn’t really matter now as we are on the brink of a World War which is directly related to the inept doings of Obama and his minions and further allowed to happen but a equally inept Republican party which last its way after ending slavery.

Ignoring the reset with Russia and the continuing drain of technology and jobs to the Asian countries we have the more serious problem of direct attacks on the US and Europe by Muslims. These are not radical Muslims or some group claiming to be Islamic as Obama and Clinton would have us believe. The Jihadists are only doing what their beliefs tell them to do which is to be exactly like their prophet Mohammed; for he was a brutal war lord that concurred the Arabian peninsula in the last 10 years of his life after going to Medina. But that is old history today after Obama took office the following chart shows the progression of Islam as it goes on the attack again after being unleashed by Obama and his radical policies.   The trend shown in this chart is very disturbing and we have over a year yet to go!

Obama and Jihad

Why does Jihad exist in Islam?


Since 2001 and the Paris atrocities there have been 317 Jihadist attacks worldwide, of that total 106 caused significant death and destruction and of that number 38 caused casualties of over 250 people. These attacks were perpetrated by Muslims against both Kafirs (those that are not Muslim) and other Muslims (mostly ones seen as cooperating with Kafirs). If Islam is a religion of peace how can this ongoing slaughter, see the following Chart, be explained?

The answer is that Islam is not a religion it is a political system that contains a religion within it and its goal is that every man woman and child in the world becomes a Muslim. Jihad is the means to achieve than and it takes two forms one is through persuasion and intimidation and the other is by war and terror. There can be no accommodation with Islam whether we want to admit it or not it is a battle to the death — there can be only one winner.

TRILOGY 01

As can be seen from the above Chart during the 8 years of the Bush administration 2001 to 2008 Casualties (killed and wounded) dropped to almost zero by 2008/2009 from their high after 9/11. After Obama took office and pulled all the troops out of Iraq, thereby creating ISIS, the opposite occurred with Jihadists attacks reaching levels of attacks and casualties never seen before in modern times even surpassing what occurred in 2001 and the year isn’t even over. At the current rate of Jihad attacks and Kafir casualties’ we may reach over 5,100 casualties by the end of the year and maybe even a lot more if we get another Paris style attack.

Whether the Islamic Jihadist movement comes from 1% of the Muslims or 10% of the Muslims or even a higher percentage of the Muslims it just really doesn’t matter does it. These attacks against the rest of the world have been going on for 1383 years and so far the Muslims have killed an estimated 270 million people of all faiths and races and that is the equivalent of 195,228 killed per year since 623 CE, so we can see it could get a lot worse.

The following material was derived from the work of Bill Warner who has a PhD in Physics and who has done extensive work on Islam from a scientific point of view which takes out most if not all misunderstanding about why the Jihadists do what they do when we are told that Islam is the religion of peace. What I will be presenting here is a very short summary of Dr. Warner’s work presented on his website www.politicalislam.com where he has a number of books that he has written and are for sale at very reasonable prices. His approach to the subject is unique and very solid such that it is almost impossible to argue any of his conclusions. The material presented here is taken from his book The Foundations of Islam mostly from the introduction to Islam Lesson One which is a self study course that Dr. Warner prepared.

The first thing that Dr. Warner tells us is that there are two misconceptions about Islam. The first is that Islam is only a religion; which it is not; it is a total way of life from birth to death and encompasses “everything” that a Muslim must do in life. The second is that Islam is impossible to understand without extensive study at the college level and this is also not true. The next thing Dr. Warner tells us is there is a serious contradictory nature to Islam for you can find very nice Muslims and then there are evil Jihadists both claiming to be true Muslims so which is true. Political correctness and multiculturalism dictates that we use a moral argument not a factual argument when looking at the dichotomy of Islam and so we are only allowed to look at the non Jihadists faction of Islam.

Dr. Warner’s approach is to go to the source of Islam for guidance which is Mohammed and all Muslims both the “nice” Muslims and “hard core” jihadists will agree that, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his Profit.”  So clearly we must understand Mohammed to understand Islam. We can find out all about Mohammed in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Most of us have heard of the Koran but not the other two books but to understand Islam we must understand all three of these works.

The Koran introduces us to Mohammed and in the Koran there are over 90 verses which say that Mohammed is the “perfect” Muslim. Then it also claims that every Muslim is to imitate Mohammed in every detail of his life and if they don’t they will go to hell. Therefore if we know what Mohammed did we can understand the Koran and Islam. So starting with the Koran we must first put it in chronological order and when we do that we find there are actually two Korans. The first Koran written in Mecca is very religious (and the one commonly refer to by the media) and the second Koran written in Medina is very political (which is ignored) so which is the true Koran? To find the answer we need to look at the Sira which is the biography of Mohammed and the Hadith which tells us what Mohammed did, i.e. stories about Mohammed.

Dr. Warner did something I never thought of which was genius — he took the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith and compared the size of their text of each which would then give us an approximate measure of importance. This is very important as the Trilogy of the Koran, Sira and Hadith forms the true Islamic bible. Just like what Christians have with the old and new testaments. So Islam can be defined by what is in the Trilogy and if it is there it is Islam and if it isn’t there then it isn’t Islam. The following Chart is Dr. Warner’s breakdown of the Trilogy and you can see that 86% of Islam is in the Sira and the Hadith which are refer to as the “Sunna,” or the words and deeds of Mohammed. And only 14% of Islam is in the Koran. Since we are told in the Koran that we must be exactly like Mohammad then what is in the Sunna must be very important to being a true Muslim. Therefore according to Dr. Warner analysis there is nothing outside of the Trilogy that we need to know everything that we need to know about Islam is in those three books.

TRILOGY 02

The next step Dr. Warner takes is to look at what is in those three works. When we read the Trilogy we find a new word to us the “Kafir” which is the word for anyone that is not a Muslim and the word Kafir is a very derogatory word much worse than N**** and here are a few of the things said about a Kafir: A Kafir can be mocked, a Kafir can be beheaded, a Kafir can be plotted against, a Kafir can be terrorized, a Kafir is evil, a Kafir should be disgraced and a Muslim is not a friend of a Kafir. Dr. Warner gives the actual verses that say this in his book but I’m only giving a summary of his work, you really need to read the book to get the full effect of the amount of work Dr. Warner put into this.

The next thing Dr. Warner did was to find out how much of the Trilogy is devoted to the Kafir (us) and what he found was astounding

TRILOGY 03

Taken as whole over 50% of the Trilogy is devoted to non-believers, the Kafir, than to what it takes to be a good Muslim. Why is so much of Islam devoted to the Kafir and how evil and bad they are? Understanding this allows us to understand Islam and that allows us to know why the jihadists are the “true” Muslims and all others just don’t understand their religion. This is not much different than most religions as how many Christians know every aspect of their religion. With Christianity it’s not as important as it is in Islam since there were not two different Christ’s there was only one and so it’s hard to get confused over the motivations of Christ. One can argue that there are bad Christians but it’s really hard to come up with a version of Christ showing that he promoted the killing of Jews and the pagans if they would not convert to Christianity.

At this point Dr. Warner tells us that with this method it’s impossible for a Muslim to refute anything that is based on the Trilogy for this is the heart of what their religion is. There is nothing else but the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. And now since the Kafir is outside of Islam (their definition) that means that any doctrine which has to do with Kafirs is a political doctrine not a religious doctrine. And now we can say … “that there is a Kafir-centric point of view with regards to Islam. The Koran, Sira and Hadith consider the Kafir to be the worst of all possible people.” Dr. Warner then states, “We have a foundational view. The statements being made here about Kafirs are based on the foundational doctrine of Islam. It is the literal basis of Islam.” Additionally and keep this in mind Dr. Warner tells us, “One of the things, by the way, that we see in examining all three texts: the Koran, Sira and Hadith, is that Islam is always on the attack about the Kafir, either psychologically or physically.” And there is 1400 years of history to prove that statement.

There is another large subject found within the Trilogy of Islam, and that is the story of the Jews. When Mohammed started in Mecca Mohammed was kind to the Jews and viewed himself the final Jewish prophet. Then later in Medina, in three years the three Jewish tribes residing there were annihilated and they represented half the population of Medina. Dr. Warner finds that the Jews comprise 12% of the biography of Mohammed and 9% of the Hadith. In addition 7% of the Koran contains negative comments about Jews. Over all in the Trilogy 9.3% comprise negative comments about Jews. The following Chart shows the details and then when we compare the Trilogy to Hitler’s Mein Kampf with only 7% negative comments about the Jews, and look what they did to the Jews, it’s no wonder they hate them so much.

TRILOGY 04

Not in the introduction but later in his book Dr. Warner looks at the Muslim view of women and one find that they are of very low status in Islam which makes it hard to understand why “western” women voluntarily convert to Islam. One can garner from observation that the only real purpose for Muslim women is to bear as many children as possible and they seem to have birth rates of 6 to 8 babies per women so that view is supported. Overall Muslim women are treated as property and have very low status as shown in the next Chart.

TRILOGY 05

Dr. Warner summarizes the discussion at this point before moving on. “These lectures on the foundations of Islam are from the standpoint of the Kafir; these views are Kafir-centric. It’s important to realize that to the Muslim, the apologist (the Kafir that believes the Mecca Koran is the only Koran) and all other Kafirs will never align with them. So when people come together for bridge building or other such multicultural events, it is “impossible” to align Kafirs viewpoints with that of the Muslim. The reason is this: Islam is against the Kafir and takes every opportunity to hurt the Kafir. So therefore the Kafir is the victim. The Kafir-centric view is the victim’s view of Islam.”

Now we get to one of the parts we are interested in especially today which is Jihad for here is where we have Muslims killing us for reasons we as Kafirs do not understand. According to Dr. Warner there is a great deal in the Trilogy about Jihad and using Dr. Warner’s technique we see in the next Chart that on average 31% of the Trilogy is devoted to jihad. And that is, “not a verse or two, but a major theme of Islam.” Clearly Jihad is a very important subject to the Muslims as it is the path to converting the world to Islam. TRILOGY 06

Now we have all heard that Jihad means an inner struggle not war, but is this true? The answer is yes this is technically true the proper term for war is harb. But there are two kinds of struggle or jihad. There is the inner struggle jihad as in trying to curb your temper or try to stop smoking and then there is the outer struggle jihad, the Jihad of war.   Dr. Warner’s work is then used to determine how much Jihad in inner and how much Jihad is outer and we find that in the Hadith 21% of the text is about jihad and looking further we find that of that 21% about 2% is the inner jihad and 98% is the outer jihad which in this case it is against Kafirs. So the outer jihad of “war” which seems to be the most important Jihad is all about converting or killing the Kafir.

So we have 2% of jihad is the inner struggle and 98% of Jihad is about killing Kafirs so obviously we can see which is the most important to Muslims and the reason there is so much killing done by Muslims. Also the jihad of war can be waged in many different ways by the sword, by violence, by mouth argument persuasion writing (propaganda), and by money or the financing of jihad. And there is also taquiyya which is scared deception which Mohammed used and promoted to deceive Kafirs if it would advance Islam. The non violent methods of jihad are actually civilization jihad for what it means is that every aspect of a kefir must be replaced by Islam. Jihad is total meaning when Islam becomes a majority in a country within a short period of time every aspect of that conquered country will be replaced. This explains why we see ISIS destroying everything that pre dates Islam and blowing up anything that is of the Kafir. The literal interpretation of this replacement is that the entire world but go back to 632 CE and the time of Mohammed as that was the perfect world.

So what we have found so far is that Islam is full of dualities and there are three sets of them.

  • When Mohammed is in Mecca he is peaceful and considers himself a Jewish prophet. Then later when he is in Medina he ends up hating the Jews and kills their men and makes slaves of their women.
  • When Mohammed is in Mecca there is no mention of jihad. When he is in Medina his teaching is full of jihad; violence war and decapitations.
  • When Mohammed is in Mecca as a peaceful preacher he could only get about 150 people to follow him in 13 years. When he moved to Medina he became a warrior and a politician and conducted war against anyone that opposed him. In the last 9 years of his life through war and conquest about 10,000 people a year were “forced” into being Muslims.

So who is Mohammad is he the peaceful preacher or the violent warrior? Is the Koran and the Sunna about peace or about war? This dualism is what makes it hard to understand Islam for if the Koran is the perfect word of the only god of the universe Allah then everything in it must be true. The early peaceful Koran is true and the violent jihadist Koran is also true. When two things contradict one another, than normally using logic one must be false. But since this is Islam and Allah’s will is absolute then both can be true if we look at the subject in proper perspective one Koran is for the Muslim (Mecca) and the other Koran is for the Kafir (Medina).

Dr. Warner has researched this subject in great detail and he uses a scientific prospective that resolves the conflict by analyzing the writing and finding that there are two separate worlds to a Muslim the world of the Ummah (collective community of Islamic peoples) and the world of the Kafir (everyone who is not a Muslim). Dr. Warner following that line of thought, which is correct, goes on to say that clearly since the Koran, and Sira and Hadith all treat Kafirs with great cruelty and contempt it means that the Kafir falls under a separate ethical system from Muslims. This allows them to do what they do to us and which we do not understand at our peril.

This duality of Islam is one of two main principles of Islam the other is submission. We are told that Islam means peace but that is not true Islam first means submission and peace than comes after you submit to Islam.

The last subject is The Sharia (which is Islamic law) which is the codification of all the standards of behavior found in the Islamic Trilogy. The Sharia interprets what is found in the Koran and the Sunna and turns that into a legal system that encompasses 100% of a Muslims life: government, political, social, business, education, marriage and family life in great detail. According Islamic scholars the purpose of The Sharia is to dominate all governments of the world and replace all constitutions. Islam is to replace all other religions of the world. Every aspect of our life must be done as Mohammad did it in the year 632 CE. Submission is what Islam is about and everyone must submit to Allah and the Sunna of Mohammed.

In summary Dr. Warner tells us that, “Islam is based on the Sunna of Mohammed, his words and deeds as recorded in the Sira and the Hadith. If you know what Mohammed did, if you know his perfect pattern of life, then you don’t need to ask a Muslim what a Muslim should do.”

 

Apprentice Secretary of State


Among other things trump is famous for his long running ‘Apprentice’ TV series and since today the media or pop culture is where you make or break a person’s credibility and popularity it would seem to me that a ‘show’ of some kind could be made using that format. For example, a skit with Donald interviewing candidates for various offices in Washington DC. There are many variations on how this could be done from Apprentice VP to Apprentice Secretary of State.

Maybe the first one would be Donald interviewing Hillary and Kerry for Secretary of State along with someone he would like when he is elected.  SNL could run a segment every week and it could be for current and past leaders and I’m sure it would be a Yugh hit.

images

Hillary’s Deceit and lies go all the way back to 1974


In 1974 President Nixon resigned from his position as the President of the Unites States, in part from the threat from the House of Representatives that they would impeach him. Whether he would have been or not his demise was, in part, a result of the then young 27 tear old staffer Hillary Rodham who married William Clinton the next year.

The following link will give you are the gory details and that are not faltering to Hilliary who was a consummate lair even back then.

By DAN CALABRESE – Bet you didn’t know this

Wouldn’t it be poetic Justis if what Hilliary did in 1974 to bring down Nixon detailed her presidential campaign for erasing a hard drive to hide her crimes in 2015 some 41 years after accusing Nixon of hiding his crimes by easing tapes started her career that lead her to this spot.

 

 

The Perfect “Political” Storm


Toward the end of 2014 I made a couple of predictions the first was the Hillary Rodham Clinton would not be the democratic Candidate for President in 2016, because she has a rotten personality. The second was that at the end of 2015 or early 2016 BHO would take a climate treaty to the UN based on the COP21 conference that will be held in Paris in Nov/Dec 2015. Recent events over the past month have led me to believe the following could be true.

gty_gty_h_clinton_a_gore_jef_120831_wmain

BHO does not want Hillary to be president, according the Rush and BHO really wants the world climate treaty as his crowning achievement so he can get both by the following.

BHO through his AG Lynch and therefore the FBI finds or makes up enough information from the Clinton server scandal to indict her. He then cuts a deal with her that he will drop the investigation if she drops out of the race. This would happen in early 2016 probably after the climate treaty goes to the UN.
Then BHO publicly goes to AL Gore and asks Gore to step up and take Clinton’s place. Right now despite the rumors (This is part of the plan to get the public use to the idea) Gore is saying he doesn’t want it. The reason BHO picks Gore is to get his climate treaty passed in the US, and who better than Mr. Climate AL Gore. Since there is no love between Gore and Clinton this makes it even better

This will work since the under 35 to 40 crowd does believe in sustainability and hence climate change so a high percentage will vote for Gore. Also the environmental movement is on board and that brings in the socialists who use climate to promote big government. Of course all the regular D’s are on board and if Gore picked Elisabeth Warren as VP it would be landslide for the D’s.

I’m writing this post in the hopes that someone well get this to the R’s at a level they can remember and if the next 12 months are as I predict be able to counter this somehow.

Where did Political Correctness Come From?


Political Correctness or PC and its matching legal form Hate Speech comes from the early 90’s when the Clinton’s were in office. Back then it seemed silly but back then I did not realize the reason for it, which was to limit the 1st amendment to the US Constitution. We see this in full force today with the made rush to ban the old confederate battle flag, statues of confederate generals, games with the confederate flags shown in them,  and even Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves.  This seems absurd since we are still allowed to see images of Nazi Germany in games and toys and else ware.

Thinking about this this morning after reading some posts on ISIS and their atrocities it came to me that Islam was the ultimate source of Political Correctness for anything that offends them caries with it the penalty of death!  ISIS is pure Islam and Islam has never been radicalize that isn’t even possible to those that understand the Islamic belief structure. However whether that is true or not what is absolutely true is that a great number of Muslims believe that to be true and they go out and destroy or kill all that offends them.

So the question is, is this where American Political Correctness will take us? With what I see today we are not all that far from being just like ISIS here.

Was the 2003 Bush Invasion of Iraq a “bad” decision?


This question seems to be popping up in all the media interviews of all the Republican candidates for the Republican Party’s potential nominee for the 2016 Presidential election next year. How these candidates answer this question should have been discussed in their planning sessions but it has obviously not done them any good since it is a question that cannot be answered much as the older version of, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” cannot be answered with a yes or no. Since most of these candidates are attorneys their ability to give a proper answer is a surprise.

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt in this case). Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda. This is not a legitimate question and must therefore be answered very carefully or not at all.

The current version of this type of question, “Was the 2003 Bush Invasion of Iraq a “bad” decision?” which is usually followed by a statement such as, “If you knew then what we know now.” There is no possible logical answer that can make any logical sense to a question like this. The person or candidate for office should state that this is not a valid question at any level and here are three reasons why.

Number one is. Since there is no way to know the outcome of any decision the justification for any decision must be based on the knowledge and experience of the person making the decision. Since, in this case, President Clinton three years before 9/11 advocated taking out Saddam’s WMD’s based on his knowledge of Saddam’s having WMD’s and refusing to get rid of them. Then, in 1998, and continuing until 2003 there was no disagreement in any of the intelligence communities that Saddam had WMD’s, and since he had used WMD’s against the Iranians and the Kurds in his country this was not an unreasonable conclusion.

Number two is. Since time travel is not possible asking a question that requires that is not valid. Since there is no way to give a person in the past knowledge of the future than what is the point of this question?

Number three is. The biggest fallacy to this question which is it “assumes” that the outcome of not doing the 2003 invasion would be better than what happened by doing the invasion. The problem is that there is no way to know what the outcome of not invading would have been. This would require an alternative universe a fiction of science fiction fans. However it is possible to speculate on a probable outcome of not invading; which could be an emboldened al-Qaeda since the initial efforts to capture bin Laden in October 2001failed. So what if bin Laden had got WMD’s from Saddam in say 2005 (some were later found in Iraq and that came to light in 2004 to 2006) and he had gotten some of the Mustard Gas into New York City and released it. There was enough found to kill more people in New York City than were killed in 9/11 and there is no way to prove that this would not have happened.

Giving answers like this by all the candidates would stop this line of questioning.

Analysis of Objectives of Common Core


The following is a critique on the principles embodied in the Common Core national education standards currently being implemented in the United States. There are fundamental problems with the stated goals so one can only assume there is more going on here than we are being told. I think the parents of our current school children feel this “issue” and that is why there is so much opposition developing to the program.

The following is generally accepted as true:

.1% of the population has an IQ of 55 or less

2.1% of the population has an IQ of between 55 and 70

13.6% of the population has an IQ of between 70 and 85

34.1% of the population has an IQ of between 85 and 100

34.1% of the population has an IQ of between 100 and 115

13.6% of the population has an IQ of between 115 and 130

2.1% of the population has an IQ of between 130 and 145

.1% of the population has an IQ of over 145

To get into college and presumed graduate it was understood in the 50’ and 60’s that you would need a minimum IQ of 115; preferably over 120. Based on the accepted IQ distribution that would indicate that only 15.8% of the population could be college ready and of that group probably less than half would graduate for various reasons. The following short paragraphs contain statistics and numbers to show a problem, the actual numbers and percentages will be slightly different than those presented here but the principles presented will hold.

The corollary of that would be that 68.2% of the population would have to find work that would not require college but could be high school graduates. An additional 13.6% could find work but would not graduate from high school. The rest 2.2% would be dependent on others for there well being.

The stated goal of Common Core is to make every high school graduate college ready and the corollary would be, all who would go to college would graduate, otherwise why would anyone go to college. The problem with Common Core is there are only two ways to even come close to achieving the stated gold of all high school graduates being college ready.

The first is that 84.0% of the population could not graduate from high school.

The other way is that the minimum IQ to enter college would have to be lowered to say 100 which would mean that 50% of the population could go to college but only say 8% of the population would graduate. The corollary of that would be that 50.0% of the population would not graduate from high school.

Other combinations are, of course, possible but only 8 to 10% of the population can actually graduate from college unless we lower the standards to graduate from college from what they were in the 50’s and the 60’s

I wrote my undergrad thesis in economics on this very subject in 1965 and I did get an A on it so my professor did not disagree with the conclusions; although I must say that the thesis was written as a academic paper and approached from a slightly different angle, that being that as a technology based society developed jobs would have to be found for those that would not have the mental ability to work in technical fields.

Who will be running for president in 2016?


There has been much speculation about who will the Democrats and Republicans run for the Presidency in 2016 twenty months from now. Of course with Obama one never knows what he will pull between now and then to stay in power; but assuming that is not true and there is an election in November 2016 who will be running?  Well here are my picks for both parties.

For the Democrats:

For President Al Gore

For Vice President Elizabeth Warren

For the Republicans:

For Scott Walker

For Vice President Marco Rubio

I’m actually less sure about the Republican side than the Democrat side because I do not think Hillary will run, she is just not a politician and too many people in power know that. The Clinton money will not be able to overcome her deficiencies and they will talk her out of running.  Actually I see her more as the President of the UN which would be a nice consolation prize. That leaves no one of national stature for the Democrats so why not Al Gore?  In fact since this is the year that there will be a major push for a BINDING Climate treaty he maybe the best one for them.  Then put Warren as VP and that team would be hard to beat.

 

 

 

What Drives Obama?


Well it’s not all that hard to determine since he claimed he was going to Fundamentally Change America and that he thought we needed a Bill of Positive Rights and that he believed in the redistribution of wealth when he was campaigning in 2008. One could assume many things from that but since his background was that of being surrounded by Progressives, Communists’ and Muslims none of which like the United States that wasn’t a good start. Fast forward to the period from his inauguration to the present and what do we find.

Well he starts with a world apology tour in Cairo and then unconstitutionally opens up our borders to just about any one while dissing our friends e.g. returning Churchill’s bust to England; supporting our enemies e.g. not supporting the green movement in Iran; downsizing our military creating a power vacuum; and refusing to consider other sides of the issues despite two massive election losses (2010 and 2014) for his party; but worse of all is his ignoring of the Christian and Jewish slaughter being conducted by Muslims in the Middle East, Europe and America. These actions and in-actions would not have been done by someone that liked America.

So we are left with why does he do what he does?

Determining the validity or truth of an idea or statement isn’t always easy and never has been easy. A fourteenth-century philosopher William of Occam had a useful rule of thumb for this quandary. We now know it as Occam’s Razor, and it is often stated thusly: “The simplest explanation is usually the best.”

The original Latin –“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” — adds a wrinkle. This translates roughly, “Multiple variables are not to be posited without necessity.”

A more modern form of this principle is called the Duck test which is a humorous term for a form of inductive reasoning. This is its usual expression: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject’s habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse, or even valid, arguments that something is not what it appears to be.

There are only two possible answers the fit the circumstances, one he is a Muslim and two he is a Communist. But in his case he could be both a Muslim and a Communist despite they are not really compatable believe structures. But having said that both require total control of the people in all areas and a very strong central government; the only real difference between them is one is secular and the other theocratic.

Is it possible to hold both views in a single mind I don’t know but since Obama obviously is a trouble person that maybe why he does what he does; which to most of us — really does not make rational sense.