It is said increasingly Obama is incompetent; also that he is well-meaning. (Zuckerman NY Post). This is a non-sequitur. To start, the premises implicit are he is performing the task of an American president. But he is not performing this task on purpose because he is a dictator. Rather than say this, people say (here Zuckerman) he is incompetent and well-meaning.  The high measure of Obama's competence is he has advanced the active phase of democrat order in less than half the time of his elected tenure. He knows well what he is doing, and how it is to be done. Judgments such as Zuckerman's are either thoughtless or irresponsible simply. The thing for an influential man such as Zuckerman and others like him (say Cheney) to do, men who realize Obama is a tyrant purposely bearing the American nation into the Convergence toward the World State via Western Elites and Islam, is to stop him. This can be done in many ways, but the first thing must be the assertion (as here) of the simple facts: what Obama is, what he has already accomplished, what he intends and what it will come to.

Impeachment for treason and misprision of treason is a good place to start. Zuckerman needs to write a line or two about this in the paper he (I think) owns, encouraging others to face this tip of the iceberg. The problem is not Obama is a bad president. He is no president at all. He is a second or active phase dictator of the Rights teaching, understood by the Founders of Enlightenment for its democrat order in two phases (Hegel, Descartes, Hobbes), who (Hegel most famously) spelled it all out fully not later than the first decade of the 19th century.

I cannot make the two phases clear in a paragraph, although most thoughtful men understand the point intuitively. Here is a simple putting of the matter by Richard Kennington, as found in all three editions of the Strauss & Cropsey Reader: “Enlightenment is an unprecedented type of political action undertaken by the founders of modern philosophy and continued by most of their followers….Enlightenment implies ‘open societies’ linked with each other….It is necessarily antithetical to any societies or elements in a society, that seek the autonomous cultivation and preservation of their own morality and way of life. Thus Enlightenment is by intention a universal politics, potentially of global magnitude, and the first of philosophic origin.”