2008-11-12 06:07:00
Andy writes:
"I would rather not have provided reasons as whatever is presented can be turned upside down. However, I will give the benefit of the doubt that you wish to be objective. Here are 10 reasons to be hopeful and support him."
JJ:
It's good to hear from you again Andy. I thought I would go through your 10 points and comment upon them. I do this not for the purpose of turning them upside down. For one thing, an argument can only be turned upside down if it's not true. If something is true no power on heaven and earth can turn it upside down and make it untrue. Truth is that foundation which Jesus said was built upon a rock and the winds and storms can blow away, but they cannot destroy it. So as I go through these 10 points it will be impossible for me to turn them upside down or make them appear untrue if they are solidly true.
As I looked through your list I asked myself if any of these points would influence me in supporting a presidential candidate. The answer is mostly no. I want to know what the guy's going to do. I care little about his personal life, his family, his apparent sincerity, etc. All that means nothing if he raises taxes, lessens my security and makes my life more uncomfortable.
The only personality thing that is meaningful to me is whether he speaks the truth or is willing to deceive.
Andy:
"1. Given his multiracial background and his multi-ethnic and multi-cultural upbringing, he is in a vantage position to understand people and foster the cause of unity rather than divisiveness."
JJ:
I agree with you that his multiracial background does give him a public relations advantage. We're living in an age that is opposite in many ways to the old days in that it's almost an advantage to be a minority. Not only does the minority support a minority but a high percentage of whites are eager to support a minority they can agree with.
But this advantage can be used for good or evil. It doesn't really give us an indication if Obama will do good things or bad things, or build or destroy. It is also not a reason to support him as there many good and bad people in every race, in every class and among every type of people.
Andy:
"2. In terms of words, he preaches hope and has made it a major theme of his message. This has inspired lots of people and moved them from apathy to getting involved in issues of concern to them. His book the audacity of hope is a treatise on this theme. Hope springs eternal and maketh not ashamed."
JJ:
You like the idea that Obama teaches hope. Bill Clinton also put a lot of emphasis on hope, even on the fact that he was the man from Hope. That certainly wasn't enough to get my support. Any teaching about hope needs to be accompanied by what it is that I'm supposed to be hoping for. A lot of people are hoping for change but there's good change and bad change. I guess if someone just teaches change without saying that what that change will be then I would certainly be in a position of hoping that change was going to be good. But I would like to do more than hope and see some reasons why that change would be positive.
Andy:
"3. In the area of deeds, Obama chose service and community organizing above taking up more paying corporate jobs. This shows a higher sense of value, and forsaking of personal aggrandizement. Of-course he may have been ambitious, but it is better to pursue ambition through service rather than pursue it through greed. Obama has also said that "one is happier when you pursue something greater than yourself". Great words indeed. This spirit is what he seeks to foster when he calls for a mandatory time of service. It is in line with the mantra that says: "I seek to serve not exact due service". Workers of light ought to support this and not distort it."
JJ:
You like the idea that he was a community organizer. This has some merit and it did seem to give him experience in organizing that led to a very successful campaign for the presidency. Whether or not he delayed a law practice for completely altruistic purposes cannot be proven. It was during this period that he worked and met with some very questionable characters that didn't have the best interests of the United States at heart. My question however is, how is he going to apply this organizing ability? To understand this we must carefully examine what he says he's actually going to do and then see if we like what his plans.
Andy:
"4. Family values. Although he is classed a liberal, he has a stable marriage and a stable family. He also values the institution of marriage evidenced by his relationship with his wife. His stable marriage and family to me is higher evidence than any political ideology. I would rather draw inspiration about family values from a guy with a stable family and a good marriage of sixteen years rather than take the lip service of one who cannot keep house or is unfaithful to his wife. Just today, President Bush pointed out that he was struck by Obama's concern for his family and hinted that this value will impact on his (Obama's ) presidency. Bush said and I quote "this guy will bring a great sense of family to the white house" (11 November 2008)."
JJ:
You like the idea that he has family values but almost all of our presidents and many representatives have pretty good family values. Some fairly tyrannical leaders have loved their wives and children so that by itself is not enough to draw me to vote for any man or woman. It doesn't tell me the type of decisions he will make that will affect you and me.
Andy:
"5. He recognizes the supremacy of diplomacy over war. War is getting outdated and outmoded. A lot of people hope that Obama will help hasten the demise of this base strategy. Humanity needs to move on up to a higher plane even in warfare. Humanity needs to get more mental."
JJ:
You say Obama recognizes the supremacy of diplomacy over war. All of our presidents have tried diplomacy to the highest degree they thought was possible. But sometimes diplomacy fails. Chamberlain used diplomacy with Hitler before World War II. After signing an agreement with Hitler newspapers hailed this diplomacy as leading to "peace in our time." When Chamberlain returned to England he was hailed as a great leader. The nation was filled with great hope. But it was only a short time later at the diplomacy failed and Hitler broke his word and invaded Poland.
If Hitler was taken out before he became such a threat only a handful of lives would've been lost instead of many millions. But the person who would've done this would've probably gone down in history as a cowboy worse than George Bush.
I'm all for diplomacy but if you don't have some power behind it to back it up our enemies will walk all over us. Diplomacy alone is not enough to draw me to vote for anyone. But I agree it is something that must be done as much as possible but we cannot depend on this alone or destruction will wait at the door.
Bush used a tremendous amount of diplomacy with Putin. He looked into his eyes and tried to see a good man, he invited them to his ranch for a barbecue, he tried to establish a friendship and work with the man. But all of this failed to prevent Putin from turning on us in many ways.
Andy:
"6. He exercised great judgment in opposing the Iraq war. This was at a time when it was not politically expedient to do so. As at that time, there was still the general belief that weapons of mass destruction would be found. I recognize that many on this list do not believe the war was wrong. That is their opinion. Please do not tell me about the war being in line with the plans of the hierarchy. Such an assertion is somewhat unverifiable. If some members of the hierarchy sponsored it, I wish to state that their strategy was wrong and such Masters need to be remorseful. Based on the possibility of debate among the brotherhood of light as presented in the opening chapters of Immortal 4, I guess that for every Master if any, that may have supported the war, there was another that opposed it. Based on the outcomes, it was ill advised and America is not any safer for it."
JJ:
You think he exercised good judgment in opposing the Iraq war. This makes sense if you think the Iraq war was the wrong thing to do. On the other hand, one thing that is proven correct is that the surge was the correct thing to do. It was a politically unpopular move that turned out to be an amazing success and Obama was vehemently against it. Even after it was proven to be successful and he admitted it was successful he said he still wouldn't have supported the surge if he had it to do over again. Where is the common sense here?
Let's go back to just before the war. Saddam Hussein had violated UN resolutions for the 17th time. Each time he violated them the UN's slapped him on the wrist and told them him "you better behave yourself or there is going to be hell to pay." After about a dozen times Saddam Hussein learned that he had nothing to fear from the UN and he could violate the resolutions with impunity. In fact he had people in governments taking bribes from him and making profits from him staying in power. After the war he confessed that he thought he could get away with anything he wanted because the European nations would prevent Bush from overthrowing him. It came as a surprise that Bush came after him.
Everyone blames Bush for the war but the real blame goes to our European allies who did not stand behind their own UN resolutions that they unanimously voted for. If they hadn't signaled to Saddam that he had nothing to worry about then the war would have been completely unnecessary because Saddam would have subjected himself to the resolutions.
After all it was because of his defiance to the UN resolution that led to the war more than anything else. He he had abided by the rules of the cease fire from Gulf War I then the second war would have never happened.
As it is, casualties are way down in Iraq and much progress is being made and if Obama doesn't undue that progress it will not be very many years before the world will be glad that we overthrew the tyrant to help create a relatively free government that signaled freedom for the rest of the Moslem empire.
Andy:
"7. He has expressed a willingness to reach out to the international community and to build bridges of unity and harmony amongst various peoples. He has opined that we have more in common than that which divides us. This attitude is in line with the mantra that says: "the sons of men are one and I am one with them".
JJ:
You like the idea that he expresses a willingness to reach out to the international community. All presidents do this as much as they have power to do so. Bush has many more friends in the international community than the general public are aware of. It is interesting that the Eastern European nations that are now freed from communism view Bush much more favorably than Western Europe. They remember what it's like to be suppressed by tyrants whereas their neighbors have gotten soft and their historical memories fuzzy.
Overall though I agree with you that because of his popularity a unique opportunity to build some bridges is available if he moves forward with wisdom. Only time will tell on this.
Andy:
"8. Sincerity. I find him a sincere person. This was buttressed for me during the primaries when He, John Edwards and Clinton were asked what weaknesses they had. The other two cited peripheral weaknesses such as: loving people too much and the like. Obama on the other hand, cited an actual weakness such as his inability to properly organize his tasks. It was not surprising that a few days later, the people of Iowa gave him a good head start. Again, when race was becoming an issue during the Reverend Wright saga he tackled it head on instead of playing the ostrich."
JJ:
You like Obama because he is sincere. I imagine McCain was also sincere. Hillary Clinton was probably sincere but that wasn't enough to get me enthused about anything she planned to do. Most socialist are sincere in their belief that imposing socialism on the masses is a good thing. A sincere person who is deluded can create more harm than an insincere person that is more into nuts and bolts management.
Andy:
"9. Although many class him as a liberal on the left, he made efforts during the primaries to reach out to the religious right. This was evidenced by his attendance of the Saddle Back forum and Forum on Faith where he spoke openly about his faith. This attitude has not been a common occurrence with democratic candidates. This action even angered many liberals. He also called Reagan a transformational president and was criticized by some in his own party. This is good evidence of bipartisanship."
JJ:
You're impressed with Obama because he participated in Rick Warren's forum. You see this is reaching out to the religious right. Rick Warren really isn't that far right. He refuses to identify himself as a Republican or Democrat but sees himself pretty much in the center and says he is friends with Obama. Participating in a forum with a personal friend is not really moving to the other side of the aisle. I was disappointed in Obama that he did not have enough courage to debate on Fox News Channel. He joined the boycott against them. He seemed afraid of those big tough mean people over there as if they would overwhelm him. If he's afraid of friendly faces there how's he going to handle a real enemy that wants to destroy him?
Andy:
"10. The Light of Christ in every man. John 1:9 says that the light of Christ lighteth every man that comes into the world. I strongly believe that Barack Hussein Obama, has his fair share of this light. I also see him as a possible candidate for one to be used by the Avatar of synthesis. Obama's words and deeds all portray a belief in the power and necessity for synthesis. This is the principal reason I support him. Rather than see Obama's remote links with Islam as a threat, let us see it as an opportunity. In my opinion, he is far more a candidate to be used by the brotherhood of light than one to be used by the forces of darkness. Synthesis for me is higher purpose and the plan. This is in line with the molecular relationship. Of course I am sure that there are some that will turn each of the above upside down. The same can be done of any body even the Christ. This is my point of view and I encourage others to take a look."
JJ:
Your final point is that Obama is a great light that can be used by higher lives. It is possible if he were to honor the principle of freedom and seek to bring greater freedom to the masses. Unfortunately, in studying all the things he says he plans to do almost everything he plans will lead to less freedom. I do not see a direction that brings less freedom as leaning toward the light or creating a vessel that can be used by the masters.
Let us just hope he will not do everything he says he will do but changes his mind. No one would be happier than me if he turned out to be a vessel used by the light.
The dividing line between light and darkness is freedom. The dark wants maximum freedom for a few at the top at the expense of bondage for the masses. The workers of the light are willing to do whatever is necessary to bring the maximum freedom for all, from the greatest to the least, to all races and all classes of people.
The principle of freedom is the principle by which I select those leaders whom I will support. If a prospective leader lays out a plan that will suffocate freedom then I will oppose the person. Isaiah spoke well and he prophesied of our day of a time when we would sell our freedoms but not for money. In other words, he talked of a time when we would just give them away and not get anything in return. In his day if you sold your child into slavery you at least got something for him. Our civilization is selling itself into slavery and getting nothing for it but bondage, just as the prophet predicted.
Copyright © 2008 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved