IPFS
Bob Ross
More About: Philosophy: LibertarianismObama: The Myth vs. the Man
Obama: The Myth vs. the Man
Messiah, secret Muslim, Harvard elitist, bipartisan,
transparent, defender of women’s rights, community organizer, Communist,
Fascist, Capitalist, Kenyan, African American, celebrity, deserving Nobel Peace Prize
recipient, America hater, and the list goes on. All of these terms have been used
to describe President Barack Obama by both the right and the left. There is no
constructive researching anymore to find out if these accusations are valid,
and beliefs are relegated to easy to remember catchphrases regurgitated by
mainstream media sources and the brainwashed masses they influence. The view of
what a leader should be has morphed as society has become more obsessed with
celebrity culture and small, superficial differences between candidates instead
of being concerned with deeper questions pertaining to government’s involvement
in various levels of our lives.
All of the descriptions of the president add this aura of
mystery that is alluring to his base and frightening to those who oppose him,
but do they do anything but distract from his actual policies as commander in
chief? The focus on the mystique of Barack Obama has elevated him to a savior by
some and the most diabolical super-villain to overtake the presidency ever by
others. However, when we apply these labels to a man, we distort what he truly
is---a human, more specifically a politician. The left have this heroic view of
him as some prince on a white horse coming to save us from Bush and Cheney and
give free birth control to everyone that has been helped by his articulate but
empty rhetoric. The right is no better, and has a false image of him being some
secret Muslim Manchurian candidate bent on overthrowing the US while
simultaneously not being tough enough on terrorism (despite the frequent use of
drones to kill innocent people remotely in Syria, Libya, and Pakistan). This attack
from the right only helps him in the eyes of those more independent minded
voter who recognize the extreme hatred, and it even appears as if they are
deliberately trying to lose this election with their illogical approach to
criticizing Obama. Now, I am no fan of the president, but people on the limited
sides we are told all Americans fall into are forgetting that at the end of the
day he is a man who has no super powers, and is probably more plain selfish
than outright evil. The office of the presidency does not grant greater
intellectual ability or reasoning skills, just greater power to enforce one’s
own morals.
When the focus of the people is placed on imaginary descriptions
of a leader, people forget that he is really just some really well connected
politician trying to push along his ideology. He is not trying to stand up for
women’s rights or infiltrate the White House and force us into Sharia Law.
While I agree that he is using the force of the State to do things that are morally
wrong like making more wars and sending drones to kill people in Pakistan,
there needs to be a focus on his policies and actions, not some contrived idea
of who he is. He’s a guy, who is self-serving like all humans, and we need to
be realistic when discussing the reasons for supporting or opposing him. He can’t
control the gas prices or force states to accept gay marriage, but he can order
drone strikes without congressional approval in places like Pakistan and Syria.
Shouldn’t we pay more attention to what he is actually doing
instead of what people think he is doing, has done, or is going to do? Also, shouldn’t
we base our opinions on what we actually know about the man, not what prejudice
or idolatry tells us? He is, above all other occupations and terms, a
politician. You know, one of those egotistic types who pander to their base
with lies and false assurances that they will uphold whatever moral standard
they believe in once they are elected and can just have the power. In other
words, a liar who gets huge amounts of money from people by tricking them, and
then uses their power to abuse those with whom they disagree. Politicians are
some of the most reviled people in the country, and yet simultaneously some of
the most revered. Why is this juxtaposition pervading society and more
importantly, how do they get away with it? It goes back to the concept of
idealizing a human above other humans based on their occupation. It is that
eons old concept that we need leaders to take care of us and tell us how to
live and protect us from the bad guys, and gee if we can just get the right guy
in there, it ‘Merica be heaven on earth! I mean, how would we survive without
someone to rule over us?! You’d think we are afraid of freedom or something.
Looking back at history, monarchs and emperors told the
people they were appointed by God and the people believed the leaders. We scoff
at this idea nowadays, but it hasn’t changed much. We have replaced nobility
with celebrity and God with the State. We elevate presidents, congressmen, various
department czars, lawyers, cops, scientists, or anyone else claiming to be an “expert”
above ourselves and others, often without questioning their authority or
credibility. While it is important to have professionals that have experience
on subjects we know less about, it is antithetical to freedom to give
professional liars power over the people. It is not a matter of getting the
right people elected in a power structure that has failed and continues to fail
those who put their faith in it. It comes down to who we believe should have
authority over our lives; should it be us or should it be some guy (whose
occupation is liar) that the 51% elect based on emotion to take away the rights
of the 49%?
Now, I am not trying to paint all politicians
with the same brush, but it is common sense that those who seek power are more
likely to be corrupt and only become more corrupt as a result of that power.
Until we believe in our own abilities to lead our own lives instead of
depending on a lawmaker to do it for us, we will never be free. I used Obama as
the most obvious example as he is one of the most polarizing presidents thus
far, but this can be applied to any person that the uninformed elevate to the
status of Messiah/Satan based on what television or their church or the various
media outlets tell them. It is only through researching and reading and
questioning that we can find the virtue or lack thereof in any given politician
who wants to rule over us. A return to logical thinking is in order for the
people of this country as blind faith has served none of us well. I don’t want
to hear your opinion about Obama or Romney or Ron Paul unless you can give me
some evidence to prove your point, and this goes for republibrats and democons.
Cut the bullshit, and give me the truth;
unadulterated, well researched, and provable.
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Live Chat
Telegram
Telegram
3 Comments in Response to Obama: The Myth vs. the Man
Thanks for your input. I think you missed the point TheRockster. You are mistaken, Obama is not a psychopath. There is a difference between psychopath and sociopath: Psychopaths are born with temperamental differences such as impulsivity, cortical underarousal, and fearlessness that lead them to risk-seeking behavior and an inability to internalize social norms. On the other hand, sociopaths have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence.
I believe you are trying to make the case that Obama is a sociopath, not psychopath. I can agree to that, but while most authoritarian types happen to be sociopaths, they are still humans. When we put these divisive labels on someone we disagree with, it ruins our credibility and also gives them power over us. I think I made it pretty clear through past articles that I vehemently disagree with Obama on just about everything, and I refuse to give the president power over me and am not afraid of him. Saying he's a psychopath is inaccurate and can indicate instability when trying to explain to others why you disagree with him instead of using logic and reason to display how his actions make him unworthy of support.
To James17: I have spent five years researching this man named Obama, and much of my posting on this site reflects that. I know he is causing so much harm to people in other countries, and my point is that we need to focus on the gross injustices committed by him and our military as a way to sway his supposedly anti-war base. All I was saying is we need to focus on facts, not fantasies.
I get the feeling you both grossly misunderstood my article, and reacted to certain parts instead of looking at it in its entirety. I have been a Ron Paul supporter since 2007, so trust me I knew Obama was going to be just as bad as Bush before he was even elected. To accuse me of being uninformed is silly, and emotional reactions to Obama based on sensationalized facades created by Fox News or MSNBC only make you look unstable to those who are not as informed. This is an information war we are in, and the enemies' tactics are emotional appeal and other logical fallacies. In order to affect change in the hearts and minds of the people, we have to work with what we know for sure Obama has done, which does include a whole list of immoral actions like passing the NDAA, more wars and sanctions, drone strikes, etc. Don't let your emotions or other sources control you with fear. He really is just some guy, and you give him power over you when you fear him. No man is your leader unless you let him be. I hope I was able to clarify my position.
The article says: "we distort what he truly is---a human."
Obama is not human, not in the strictest sense, he is a psychopath, which means he is not fully human: he lacks conscience. An understanding that this is accurate and what it means is absolutely essential in understanding his actions and attitudes, his motivations rather than his justifications. Meghan, I challenge you to do some study of psychopaths and see if you don't end up agreeing. Psychopaths are rarely psychotic; they are not insane humans; they are a different kind of humanity.
Your right. All the way until the end when you ask for the evidence before you believe anything someone else has to say. For those that have looked into whom this president O is, they have done their homework, might have references to show you, but to do so would take you over three years of reading just what that person has done for you to see what someone else knows. Pros or cons. They are all out there for anyone that wants to see through who this person really is and most likely you will find yourself reading all of the wrongs he has done more then anything that has benefited the U.S./world public.