Countering Obama’s Philosophy
Ever wonder where Barack (Barry) Insane Obama gets his perverted philosophy? Do you find yourself scratching your head every time Obama waxes eloquent on the glories of socialism? Do you wonder how any rational person could arrive at the really “out-there” conclusions that seem to spew unhindered from the cerebral cortex of our dictator wannabe? Well, wonder no more. Let’s take a stroll through the heart, mind, and soul of a truly evil man and bring to light a detailed summary of his false teachings.
We begin our journey by reviewing some philosophical terms used by contemporary philosophers. This review will help us see the deviousness – and the attractiveness to the ears of liberalism’s mind-numbed robots that Obama’s rhetoric is intended to produce.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality. It attempts to answer the question “What is real?”
This is an important term to understand since Obama and his minions are constantly attacking our conception of what encompasses reality. To the great masses in flyover land, for example, God is a reality. Obama will have none of that. Like the philosophy of Communism, to which Obama is an adherent, God is a threat to the state. He must be replaced in the hearts of the masses with total devotion and worship to the State. Hence Obama’s famous quote that his opponents “bitterly cling to their guns and their religion.” Obama’s actions in relation to God are consistent with the tenets of Communism. That’s why you don’t see Obama attending church services… unless it is politically advantageous to do so. That is why there is a great debate as to whether or not Obama is a Christian, or a Muslim, or a tree-hugger, or a Barackophile.
Another area of philosophy we will consider is axiology. Axiology is the study of ethics and values. It critically examines with such questions as “What is good?” “What is ethical?” and “What are right and wrong?” Obama is a prime example of a person who believes in situational ethics. In other words, Obama finds something to be ethical so long as it is to his advantage at the time. To Obama, ethics are grey instead of black and white. He is a proponent of moral relativism. In a world of no moral absolutes Obama reigns supreme. As the blogger Rick Moran said of Obama, “Barack Obama is just another politician. Devious when he has to be, vague when it suits him and a liar when necessity calls.”
Epistemology is the study of how we know what is real or true. For an example of how Obama learns things read the paragraph on empiricism, below. He may be learning things, but it ain’t truth!
Authoritarianism is the system by which truth is learned from those who are authorities or experts. Oh, what would we do without the MSM? The media bombard us with supposed “truth”. And where do they get their talking points? Obama, of course.
A fifth aspect of philosophy is rationalism. Rationalism refers to gaining truth through logic. In rationalism we ask, “Does it make sense? Is it logical?”
Another way of looking at it is asking yourself: “Am I willing to be persuaded by a rational presentation of the facts?” The catch is that many people are unwilling to honestly answer the question. An anonymous blogger at rightwingnews.com put it thusly:
If a liberal could demonstrate how Obamacare would quantitatively result in a net improvement of health care in this country without violating my core principles (free market, individual choice and responsibility, etc), I’d be open to supporting it.
But what really happens is that they write a bill nobody has read or understands, demand it be passed, then call you a racist hatemonger for opposing it…and they call *you* “closed minded”.
And then there is pragmatism, which determines whether something works. If it works, it is valid; if it doesn’t it is rejected. Hmmmm, let’s see. Where has Communism “worked?” The Soviet Union? Cuba? North Korea? Vietnam? Albania? Hungary? Poland? East Germany? Chicago? Detroit? East St. Louis? Obviously, Obama is lacking in the pragmatism department. He is so dedicated to controlling every aspect of our lives that he sticks his head, complete with his oversized ears, into the sand and ignores history… ensuring that he is doomed to repeat it.
Finally, there is empiricism, which uses observation or personal experience to arrive at truth. This knowledge is obtained primarily through the senses – through what one sees, touches, hears, smells, and tastes. So what has Obama experienced in his life? Oh yeah, I remember… Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Acorn, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, Rahm Emanuel, Rod Blagojevich, David Axelrod, Van Jones, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid AL-Mansour, Father Michael Pfleger, Saul Alinsky, Tony Rezko, Andy Martin, Comel West, Bobby Rush, Marilyn Katz, Valerie Jaffett, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Harry Knox, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Kathleen Sebelius, Harold Koh, Dawn Johnson, and Louis Farrakhan. This is your Obama. And this is your Obama on drugs. Now, any questions?
So which of these philosophical systems do conservatives subscribe to? (Of course, conservatives don’t reach the same conclusions as does Obama.) The answer, of course, is all of them. But conservatives also rely on another way of knowing truth – divine revelation. That’s why you see conservatives attending church, praying, tithing their earnings, and doing all manner of good in the world. You see, conservatives still recognize that God is real and believe that He speaks truth to their souls. This, then, is the foundation of the conflict between conservatives and Obama. Conservatives believe in a power infinitely higher than that of the State – and Obama knows he can’t win so long as the people believe in God. The rejection of God is at the core of Obama’s philosophy. All else he does derives from his rejection of God. Of course, it would be counter-productive for Obama to actually admit this so we are subjected to endless stories about the depth of Obama’s spirituality (just how spiritual can you get by attending worship services via BlackBerry?) But actions speak louder than words. Every Sabbath you find Obama playing basketball or on the links. God is the furthest thing from his mind. Fore!
Nearly 20 years ago Gerald N. Lund set forth the way the elements of philosophy affect each of us:
Whether he recognizes it or not, every person holds to a metaphysical position, trusts in at least one system of epistemology, and holds a personal axiology or set of values and ethics. Furthermore, these three areas of our own philosophy are interrelated. Our metaphysics (our view of reality) influences our epistemology (the way we gain knowledge), and together the two determine our axiology (our values).
Taking Lund’s argument to its logical conclusion, I paraphrase and alter his following paragraph in order to personalize it for our Dear Leader:
Let’s suppose, for example, that a person like Obama rejects the idea that there is a spiritual dimension to life. That metaphysical position automatically determines what Obama will accept as truth. Revelation is rejected because the reality of God is rejected. Deciding what is good and bad, therefore, will not be dependent on any set of God-given laws or fear of eternal consequences. This is the foundation of Obama’s lies.
(Paragraph above from Gerald N. Lund but altered significantly by PolarCoug in order to demonstrate the applicability of Lund’s train of thought to the case of Obama.)
Like any philosophical system, Obama’s doctrine has metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological aspects. Together, these philosophical elements have contributed to convincing millions of Americans to reject traditional societal values and instead placidly wait in line for their handouts from Obama’s stash.
For example, Obama’s argument for the supremacy of the State in our lives is an epistemological matter of his attempting to direct our minds to accept his version of the “truth” simply because that which we hear originates from the government. In his mind, if he says it, it must be true. Obama accuses conservatives of being closed-minded, i.e., we don’t blindly accept his version of reality. This argument is effectively countered by an anonymous comment (from Stan W.) in response to a column on rightwingnews.com.
Closed Minded” is a term Liberals use when they are losing an argument. It means “You will not abandon your principles and come over to my side”.
Liberals confuse Close Minded with Weak Minded, or someone who is easily swayed in their opinion by words or emotion.
Most of the Conservatives I know are Strong Minded. They have no problem listening to and considering a well-thought-out argument. However, that does not automatically mean that they will change their mind or abandon their core beliefs.
Conservatives are that way for a reason. And a Liberal telling us we have to change because they say we should is an ineffective method.
Obama subscribes to the view that people believe in religion because they have been indoctrinated by their parents and that they have also been deceived by religious leaders whose motives are personal gain – money and/or power. We are the people Obama contends are “bitterly clinging to their guns and their religion.” Obama’s philosophy is that this religious indoctrination of the people brings psychological abnormalities – “derangement” or a frenzied mind. Hey, bitterly clinging to an unseen power will do that to you, right? Obama concludes that since there is no God and since religion is a farce, he can live as he pleases without fear of eternal consequences. Why does Obama care about such things as our view of metaphysics and epistemology? Because if he can shape our views on those issues, then those views provide a basis to destroy us. Obama’s philosophy is a rational system. It is not true, but it is rational! If we accept the assumption that there is no super-natural reality, then it logically follows that there is no God. If that is the case, then man is the supreme being. According to Lund “It also follows that if there are no eternal realities, then there are no eternal consequences for man’s actions.” Obama’s reasoning is that he himself determines what is right and wrong, not some set of rules laid down by a group of phony religious leaders claiming to speak for a God who doesn’t exist.
Not only is Obama wicked, but he is proud of his wickedness. And why shouldn’t he be? Obama has convinced himself that there is no God and no ultimate right and wrong. He has convinced himself that he is free from all the psychological hang-ups the rest of us feel – guilt and shame for example. When was the last time you saw Obama acting ashamed? Me, too – never.
Unfortunately for Obama he can’t prove the Communist thesis that there is no God. Based on the very criteria he himself has established, Obama would have to perceive every cubic meter of the universe simultaneously. This creates a paradox: In order for Obama and his Communist philosophy to prove there is no God, he would have to be a god himself! Therefore, while bitterly clinging to his Communist philosophy that God does not exist, Obama is acting on “faith,” the very thing for which he so sharply derides the conservative movement.
Let us learn the lesson. No matter how clever or how sophisticated Obama and his Communist philosophy appears to be, it is not true. Obama’s Communist philosophy is riddled with contradictions, errors, and false assumptions. Conservatism, on the other hand, is truth – truth that has stood the test of centuries, truth that can withstand rational examination, truth that is pragmatic and practical, truth that can be confirmed through personal experience. A conservative need not apologize for his or her beliefs, for these beliefs withstand every scrutiny much more efficiently than do the doctrines of Obama.
Obama’s teachings are based on lies. Obama’s philosophy, so pervasive within our society, leads to a dead end. It is incumbent upon each of us to distinguish between the truth of conservatism and the lies of Obama, between freedom and slavery.