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.
Centinel2012 