Is Obama Making His Next Career Move?

Obama always seems to crave more ego gratification. There is no limit to his thirst for personal power and glory. The slogan "The Audacity of Hope" is taken straight from Napoleon's creed, "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!" Always act audaciously on the battlefield, because your opponents will never predict your dangerous moves. Your enemies will be shocked and overwhelmed by the risks you take.

That's how Napoleon managed to kill tens of millions of Europeans in his attempt to conquer the world after 1800. George Patton used the audacity strategy to beat Nazi armored divisions in World War II. Hitler used it with the Blitzkrieg. It's also the theory of the Big Lie: You tell such breath-taking whoppers that normal people can't imagine that you don't believe a word of it yourself. Most people will believe in Big Lies more than little lies, if you repeat the Big Lies over and over again -- and if you control the Organs of Propaganda. Which the left did until the internet arose.

Obama has a lifetime of faith in an imperialistic creed, Leninist-Marxism of the third-world variety. That was the dream his Kenyan father had.

So it's not just his mysterious birth certificate. Obama is a psychological stranger to normal American politics, and intuitively many Americans grasp that. Compare Obama to Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, or Herman Cain, and you get it immediately. It's just like the Sesame Street jingle, "One of these is not like the others..." Obama's differentness has nothing to do with skin color. It's his fundamental beliefs, his political style, and his personal morality. At some level everybody gets that.

But Obama is also a calculating politician. Like all running politicians, he projects complete faith that he'll win in 2012. But privately he knows perfectly well that his chances are about 50-50, and even if he wins next year, he will be out by 2016.

Remember that Obama must always expand his ego domain. He always needs a bigger stage to play on. That's the nature of his personality. If he can't expand his ego he feels crushed, worthless, and depressed. You can see it in his face when he runs into a serious roadblock. It's not hard to spot, and you can bet that every major government in the world has hired psychological teams to do it.

I believe Obama is already planning his next promotion. That's a rational political calculation, as well as fitting his personal grandiosity.

When politicians seem to endanger their self-interest there are two possibilities. One is that they are taking great personal risks to benefit others. Anwar Sadat, Pope John Paul II, and Gandhi took risks for what they believed was the greater good, and all were targeted for assassination as a result.

But that's extremely rare. Most of the time when politicians seem to risk their careers they are planning something unexpected. They might be using the audacity strategy: Surprise the hell out of the enemy -- that would be you and me, folks -- so the enemy can't do anything to stop you.

Why is Obama always bullying Americans whose support he needs for reelection? Why did he come out for the maximum anti-Israel position? Isn't that self-destructive, if he wants to be reelected in 2012?

A reasonable guess is that Obama wants to be UN Secretary General. To do that he needs two things: Radical Muslim support, and the international left, especially European socialists.

Targeting Israel and American capitalism is the way to their hearts. It's what they all want, because Israel and America are the biggest examples of successful free nation-states today. The left want to abolish the nation-state in favor of an international imperium to be run by -- the left! Muslims want to destroy Israel for psychic revenge, and because they must own Jerusalem, just like they must own Mecca and Medina. Both sides dream of an international imperium. Radical Muslims follow a utopian imperialist creed, and so does the radical left.

The only trouble is that their utopias are actually dystopias, horrific conditions for most human beings. They are cruel charades for the human beings who must live under their control.

The Ottoman Caliphate was the last Shari'a imperium, and in Bulgaria ordinary people still hate and despise the Turks for what they did to their great-grandparents. It was horrific. Naturally, radical Muslims are still dreaming of a new and better caliphate, one that's bigger and more powerful. That's something both Shiites like Ahmadinejad and Sunnis like the Muslim Brotherhood take as their goal.

The left is atheist, and has been since Karl Marx. It always harbors bitter hatred against traditional Christianity (and Orthodox Judaism). Radical Muslims want the whole world to obey Shari'ah law. The True Believers of the left don't believe a word in traditional Islam, just like they don't believe a word about Christianity, Judaism, or, for that matter, Buddhism and Hinduism. They are thorough-going atheists.

And yet the left is constantly pretending to know nothing about Islam, and Muslims are always pretending to ignore the atheistic faith of the left. But that's just the usual barefaced denial. They both know everything there is to know about each other. They can read, can't they? Muslim ideologues read Karl Marx, and Marxists read the Salafist and Khomeinist radicals. They know.

Since 1900 there have been plenty of Communists in the Muslim world and plenty of Muslims in the Communist and socialist world. They talk to each other all the time, and they make political deals. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. It's happening on some American college campuses today, which is why Ahmadinejad can speak at Columbia but the Israeli ambassador is heckled and booed whenever he speaks on a campus. These are not accidents.

Ordinary liberals may be suckered about Islam, but the radical left isn't. They know they are making a pact with the Devil. So do the radical Muslims. Both sides believe they will end up trying to destroy each other in the end. But they have a bigger common enemy: Us.

The worldwide left-Muslim alliance wants to undermine American dominance in the post-Cold War world. The left believes what Putin has said out loud: That the breakdown of the Soviet Union was the biggest catastrophe of the 20th century. For normal people the Soviet system fell apart because it was a corrupt disaster. For the left the Soviet Union was an experiment that didn't work, and therefore has to be done over again. Never mind those 100 million innocent victims. You have to crush a lot of eggs to make this omelet. It's okay with them.

The logic is exactly like the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1938. It was politically convenient because both sides wanted to take over the West. But they knew they were enemies. Once the left-Islamist alliance destroys the current superpower they will be at each other's throats.

It's just bizarre to think that the feminist left really wants all the women in the world to wear black tents, and to be beaten (or even killed) at home for disobeying the men of the family in accordance with Shar'iah law. The actions of the left only make sense if they believe they will gain from driving a radical Muslim wedge into Western nations. Radical leftists have said exactly that.

That's why Europe now has 53 million Muslims, concentrated in capital cities like London, Paris, and Berlin. That's why Obama and the Democrats are deliberately failing to protect our borders, and suing Arizona for trying to enforce what is already federal law. To normal people that all seems self-destructive, but there's a method to their madness.

Fundamentally, Islam and the left are ideologically incompatible. The fact that they are colluding against Israel and America means that they see a short-term advantage against their inevitable long-term struggle to the death.

The Muslim Brotherhood regime of Turkey is even now trying to repeat the Mavi Marmara publicity stunt against Israel, with the militant support of Code Pink. That is the left-Islamist axis operating right in front of our eyes. This stunt is slated to happen soon, so just watch what happens.

Together, Muslims and the European left control the United Nations General Assembly. That is why the genocidal Sudan is on the UN Human Rights Commission, a grotesque reward for a mass-murdering regime. Muslim fascists and the radical left both believe in a world imperium. The United Nations is the logical vehicle for that. Radical Muslims practice a world-imperialistic cult belief. So does the left.

Obama's Berlin speech at the Prussian Victory monument started with "Citizens of the world!" -- an obvious echo of Marx and Engels' "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" Every leftist in Europe had to understand that. It's preaching Jesus to the Pope.

If you look at Obama's Cairo speech to the Muslim world, it is also aimed at a specific international constituency. Or take his middle name "Hussein." Obama has played with his own names -- Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. -- so much that keeping "Hussein" must have been a deliberate decision.

I don't think it means he is a faithful Muslim, because he doesn't do the five mandatory requirements of Islam. (Five daily prostrations, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and so on.) Obama was raised by atheist leftists; that is his real constituency, the one he really cares most about.

No, he's not a Muslim, but he can fake being Muslim very nicely, just like he tries to fake being Christian. He's a fast-change artist. That's why nobody was allowed to use "Hussein" during the election campaign, but when he wanted to be heard by Muslims he suddenly became Barack Hussein Obama. A shape-shifter. He could have changed Hussein to Harry, just like he changed Barack to Barry. He didn't, because he was looking to appeal to a Muslim constituency, and the only name that's more traditional than Hussein is Mohammed. But in America only 0.8 percent of the population is Muslim. It's not American Muslims he is thinking about.

But notice that he must have decided to keep "Hussein" years ahead of time. These people always play with symbols -- it's their way of feeling smarter than everybody else. The radical left does a lot of long-term planning, which is also why normal Americans are constantly surprised when they conquer another peak of power in our society: the media, universities, and now the American economy.

Obama always favors internationalist constituencies over American interest. That's why he was willing to bow down to China's Hu, to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and to the Emperor of Japan -- but not to the Queen of England. It's all deliberate symbolism that triggers recognition by the constituencies he wants to impress. If Obama is not addressing America's real concerns it's because he has bigger, foreign audiences in mind.

This is the audacity of the radical left. Bill Ayers' 2001 book had a cover picture of ole' Bill stomping on a crumpled American flag. They did that with malice aforethought, not just to say "up yours!" to Americans who love America, but also to signal the left and Islamists whose side they are on. Remember, Israel is the Little Satan but America is the Big Satan. Killing Israel is only the first step.

Nothing could be better for Obama's UN ambitions than coming out for the strategic destruction of Israel, as the 1949 cease-fire lines imply. In the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer just made a compelling case for that. But the indefensibility of the 1949 borders has long been obvious. You can't defend a country nine miles wide at the waist. Obama claims to be ignorant of that elementary fact, but that is absurd. He knows, he knows.

By targeting Israel Obama may be preparing the ground for a UN Secretary General campaign. If he loses in 2012 he will blame the United States for being racist, the way he always does. Racism is the club they use to beat us with. They don't even believe it, but they use it, following the immortal line Obama cited, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Obama will be a nice guy to you until he needs his gun. Then you're a racist, just like Hillary and Bill became "racists" when Obama needed to win. Bill Clinton was outraged by being called a racist, but then he's used that club thousands of times in his political career.

The next time a Democrat gets into the White House -- maybe Hillary in 2016? -- Obama expects to be nominated for UN Sec. General.

What comes after that? Nobody can know that, but the overall goal is clear enough.

Obama has always followed an imperialistic creed, and so has Islam. That Axis of Evil is trying to grasp worldwide power right now, and if Obama has his way, he will be at the head of the parade.

“A reasonable guess is that Obama wants to be UN Secretary General.”

I’ve said that for a year or two now. It seems an obvious next step for him and his path to crush our country. It’s the final reason (of many, IMO) we should withdraw from the UN and tell them they have to meet somewhere else - off U.S. soil - from now on.

“To do that he needs two things: Radical Muslim support, and the international left, especially European socialists.”

They’re all his peeps - he’s Muslim, also a “citizen of the world”, and he’s molding our country into the European socialist model. (He hates our ally England, though, but that’s a personal thing going back to his daddy.)

excellent column, but the “l’audace” quotation was not Napoleon, it was Georges Danton during the French Revolution:

“Il faut de l’audace, encore de l’audace, toujours de l’audace”

Doesn’t change the points of the Lewis column, but writers are always mis-attributing that quotation for some reason. Danton said it in a speech to the National Assembly, not so long before he himself became a candidate for the guillotine for being insufficiently pure in his extremism!!

I’ve said that for a year or so also but I’m not so sure it is Sec Gen of the UN.
There are those working on world government and it may be something other than the UN he/we are looking at.

I may be wrong but I have never thought he was going to run in 2012.
He has been smart enough to get most of it done in one term. He can call on Hillary, who is every bit the Marxist as he, to finish the job. They made a deal in 2008 if you remember.

This is a very good opinion piece even though some of its power is vitiated by his assertion about Napoleon killing tens of millions of Europeans and, as Freeper Enchante point out, his misquotation of Napoleon on audacity. Also, as Freeper Yossarian points out, he is apparently ineligible to become Secretary-General and, in any event, presuming Obama's career motivation is wildly speculative.

But it is a very important opinion piece because he has laid down several fundamental and key principles.

First he understands Obama as a narcissist which informs all his behavior from childhood through this administration.

Second, he understands that Obama is a Marxist and he understands that that, in turn, implies that he wants one world government, most likely through the United Nations.

Third, he understands that to a radical leftist such as Obama, the United States constitutes the principal obstacle to the achievement of one world government under socialist principles. Ancillary to that understanding is the idea that Israel and Great Britain as two very close allies of the United States also represent impediments to the accomplishment of that dream of one world rule and so they too should be undermined and disparaged.

Fourth, the fundamentalist Islamic jihad seeks the same intermediate goal as do the international radical socialists, the destruction of the United States of America as a significant impediment to one world rule. Incidentally, they regard the United States Constitution as a significant impediment to the destruction of the United States.

Fifth, the narcissism of Obama individually and leftists generally lead them to presume that in the end days after the destruction of the United States they will prevail over Islam. Islam presumes the converse. Both regard the other as useful idiots.

To some degree or other all Marxists are narcissists and that explains why there is such a ferocious infighting among them. Our job, if we wish to save the Republic, is to exploit that tendency.

Concur.

Also, Patton was audacious because he was privy to the take from Ultra and sometimes knew the Germans' order of battle before Berlin did.

Easy to attack when you know exactly where your opponent is weak, according to their own communications. (He raised concern in the Allies' high command that he would compromise Ultra by being so unfailingly *right* in when and where to attack. Thank God the Germans never caught on, being so smug that they thought their code was unbreakable; and thank God for the Poles who helped bring to the West a knowledge of the machine and how it worked.)

Cheers!

I think Lewis summed up Bambi’s evil personality and his peculiar ability to mentally reconcile conflicting systems (the left and Islam) by focusing on the fact that they both have one thing in common, they hate the US and the modern world (as does Obama).

However, as Yossarian pointed out, he can’t be the UN Secy Genl if he runs from the US because a person from a country that sits on the Security Council can’t hold that position. It’s certainly possible that he could throw off all pretence once he is no longer president and just acknowledge his Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship, or possibly he could even convince the UN to change its rules for him. However, if the UN Secy Genl position is out, then what does he want?

I have also always thought that Obama saw the US presidency as simply a stepping stone on the way to something else, something “bigger,” but I can’t figure out what that something might be.

The author may be exactly correct in his thesis; I had thought smaller, president of Kenya for instance, but emperor of the world, via the UN, seems more Zero's piece of cake and would fit nicely with Hillary as president of the World Bank. Moon, now in his second term, could conveniently resign to open the slot at the right time - harder to do if Moon had been replaced, but he was actually ‘unopposed’ and reselected June 21st - fancy that.

what a fight we have before us!

. . . as Freeper Yossarian points out, [0] is apparently ineligible to become Secretary-General.

And of course, 0 has always been such a strict observer of eligibility requirements. ;)

First he understands Obama as a narcissist which informs all his behavior from childhood through this administration.

Not to quibble, but his childhood includes this administration.

Obama is a Marxist

I think more that 0 is a cynical pragmatist who embraces Marxism only because it advances himself to do so. He understands he could never advance in the conservative or libertarian camp on his own dubious merit, and therefore must fly the flag which empowers him as a minority. Once he gets where he wants to go, or if it ever hindered his progress, 0 would throw Marxism into the dustbin as readily as he does any 'close adviser' who becomes a liability.

the narcissism of Obama individually and leftists generally [The left presumes] that in the end days after the destruction of the United States they will prevail over Islam.

The left would do well to consider the experience the Weimar Republic had with trying to leverage an ideology to bring down a governemnt. It couldn't control the result in 1917, and the left will not be able to control the result, if they get what they hope for, in 20XX.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.