Re-Introducing Relativism

David Limbaugh, the less bombastic, more correct brother of that dynamic duo (oh to be a fly on the wall during their childhood), has written an article regarding Barak Hussein Obama’s “reintroduction” to the American populace.

First with Gore, we joked about Gore Version 2.0 and 3.5, etc.

Then with Kerry, we just joked.

And now Obama. Following in the footsteps of the grand masters of moral ambiguity, personal power-gathering, and political pandering, he is trying to reinstroduce himself because apparently, we don’t really know the “real” Obama.

Who as been that messianic, sainted, robed and haloed bright and shining light illuminating all the brightest corners of our unexamined American experience? His evil twin?

The one with ties to Chicago-corrupt political machines and liberal terrorist friends and racist anti-Christ preachers, that must’ve been his evil twin. For sure.

So he is trying to set the record straight, reintroducing us to the “real” him, the “real” Obama. One question: Why do they think this ploy will be even potentially effective? Because of relativism.

In the enlightened eyes of relativist philosophy, there is no unambiguous absolute truth. Everything is subject to perception, and that perception, to our addled minds, must be truth.

(Writing that just now caused some flashing lights in my head: Relativism is born of our own despotic egos trying to rationalize an incredibly over-wrought sense of our own self-importance. If we do not bow to some supreme truth, we believe our own thoughts to be our own ultimate truth. And if our own thoughts are necessarily subject to our own biased perceptions, we must find some way of convincing ourselves that our biased perception can still be considered actual truth. Ergo: relativism, the belief that my limited perception of a small part of truth can somehow rise to the same level as that absolute truth.)

So, if perception is everything to relativists, Obama should be expected to try and reinvent himself.

Unfortunately for him, truth always prevails.

Throughout this election we have seen and we will continue to see ugly skeletons crawling out of Obama’s closets. McCain steadfastly refuses to capitalize on these and I do not believe he has been the source of any of their “outings”, but Obama cannot hide that he is a liberal and divisive and corrupt as they come. The truth will keep finding a way out and he will be stuck in perpetual damage-control mode trying to cover over those pernicious things we call facts.

David Limbaugh: It’s Only About Winning

2 thoughts on “Re-Introducing Relativism”

  1. I don’t think I really want to know the REAL Obama. The one that is parading around is scary enough to me.

    We all need reality checks to make sure we are not dealing in relativism for our own egos.

    But when the culture is drowning in relativism…
    Well, then, they will believe in (and vote for) a lie.

  2. I like David Limbaugh, more so than his brother, but (yup) here again I really don’t see much content. There is a lot of general ideas, ad homs, joking, contrasting, etc, but where are the facts and first source material?

    I’ve been getting on an American history kick and I can’t stand reading other’s opinions and thoughts. They bore me! I want original source material which allows me to make my own judgement. For example, while at Borders I found a book titled, The Federalist Papers, which entails the letters from Hamilton, Madison and John Jay to the colonies ensuring them the Constitution will guarentee the states their freedom and also that is it superior to the Articles of Confederation. I loved reading this!

    So when I read anything I ask whether or not this is an original idea/argument, if it is referencing original source material or if it is just vague opinion.

    Like I said before the best place to look for this is at where you can see Obama’s voting record (or the lack thereof).

Leave a Reply