RoR: Forum

What could possibly be his motivation to do this?

Post 1

Friday, June 10, 2011 - 7:08pm

Obama is strongly in favor of global governance, but because the American people would be very upset about giving away sovereignty he has to do things without explaining the reasons or openly acknowledging that as a goal. He wants to diminish the power of United States as a key step to shifting power to global organizations. Look at his refusal to ask for congressional approval of the war in Libya and instead getting the 'permission' from the UN and that he put NATO in charge. Now, Gates says that NATO needs to step up and carry more of the load. And, global governance is Soros' major drive ("Open Society") and Soros has said that the United States is the major road block to global governance.

Also, I think that Obama doesn't like our country and his instincts are of different parts:
1. Diminish this country that he sees as an obstacle of global governance and to punish it for being imperialistic (in his view),
2. Achieve a more 'egalitarian' world status - find ways to make other countries more powerful relative to us.
3. Give away things because we 'don't deserve' these things, and should give them to the less-developed nations - redistribute the wealth is not just national, but also global.

There is also a weird thing that I have never fully understood. The far left has a fawning approach to dictators - doesn't make sense, but it is there. It is like they are almost sexually attracted to brutal rulers.

Who has Obama criticized? Chavez? No. Putin? No. Ahmadinejad? No. Only Qaddafi and that was slow to come and then only to continue his support of the "Arab Spring."
------------

But, it could also easily be some quid pro quo agreement between Putin and Obama/Hillary that we may never find out about.

Post 2

Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 11:36am

Well, for some odd reason, Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" was dedicated to Satan, himself (a tremendously powerful figure).

Good points, Steve.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/12, 11:38am)

Post 3

Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 12:43pm

"[Evil is] not Satan with a sword, but a corner lout sipping a bottle of Coca-Cola ... not fire and brimstone, but goo." -- Ayn Rand

Source 1 from The Fountainhead

Source 2 from Atlas Shrugged

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/12, 12:44pm)

Post 4

Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 1:28pm

Luke,

I agree that evil is power-lust, but that it is not power, itself -- but Satan was supernatural and, if being friggin' supernatural isn't sufficient for calling something powerful, then what is???

As it stands, your otherwise-unqualified quote can mean only one of the following things:

A) Saul Alinsky, and the commie bastards who revere him, aren't evil -- because they stand in awe of Satan, and Satan is a powerful figure, but evil isn't powerful
B) Satan, himself, even though supernatural, was not evil -- at least not if he had a powerful sword! -- because evil is impotent, and supernatural beings armed with swords can do a lot of real damage (which is the opposite of impotency).
C) Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama are the kind of guys who would be found at a party, sitting in the corner, drinking Coca-Cola out of bottles.

:-)

Please elaborate.

Ed

Post 5

Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 2:03pm

Knowing almost nothing else and possibly speaking out my backside, I would say that the Satan dedication was a mere provocative ruse to distract from the goo goal. Removing the tension of risk that comes with freedom and replacing it with a Nanny State leads to the true goal of the Communists, namely a goo society of corner louts sipping the socialist equivalent of Coca-Cola. They appeal to two of the traditional seven deadly sins, namely envy and sloth. Someone familiar with contemporary Cuban society described it this way to me.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/12, 2:04pm)

Post 6

Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 4:52pm