Tag Archives: David Limbaugh

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

A Few Good Men

Kindred on the battlefield of culture. Brothers in the fight of moral excellency. Trained and battle-hardened soldiers on the front lines of American society.

Dinesh D’Souza and David Limbaugh are two men I respect greatly, both for their principles and for their courage.

Of all the substantive columnists I read regularly, these two are those I read the most reliably, popping out of Google Reader to read them on their home sites more consistently than any other writers of the hundreds of articles I peruse each day.

Recent columns from each of these two are noteworthy and well worth reading and I encourage all to add them to their regular reading.

  • ¬†Dinesh D’Souza – How Christians Ended Slavery

    [W]ho killed slavery? The Christians did, while everyone else generally stood by and watched.

  • David Limbaugh – Observations on the Presidential Races

    It’s disappointing to watch candidates from both parties accept the premise that criticizing your opponents’ records and pointing out their inconsistencies and lies is engaging in dirty politics. It is not dirty but obligatory to draw distinctions between you and your opponents. Dirty politics is distorting one’s record or spreading lies about a candidate.

  • Dinesh D’Souza – Are Atheists Cultural Christians?

    In The God Delusion, Dawkins portrayed the Christian God as a wicked, avaricious, capricious, genocidal maniac. Dawkins even blasted Jesus for such offenses as speaking harshly to his mother. Yet if the Jewish and Christian God was such a monster, what sense does it make for Dawkins to embrace the cultural influence of that deity?

  • David Limbaugh – Conservatism’s Identity Crisis

    [F]or Republicans, there’s a fierce intramural debate not just over how conservative the party should be but also over the very definition of conservatism.

Having The Cake And Eating It Too

David Limbaugh, in his January 3rd column, contemplates the foundations of the American Experiment and the assaults against those foundations by ignorant yet usually well-meaning people of all stripes.

He asks whether or not conservatives have that “fire in the belly” necessary to motivate the country into entrusting its direction to their hands again.

Before Reagan was elected, there was much more for conservatives to be concerned over, the country had bought into massive economic and social lies and was being led by its nose down a path of recession. But Reagan led on ideas and hope, and with solid economic principles he allowed the country to see the truth in his dreams.

Have we now forgotten the strengths of America are not magic or unassailable permanent fixtures of our corner of the world?

We expect liberals to believe: We can punish the producers in this nation without reducing overall output and hurting all economic groups; we can socialize health care without destroying its quality, quantity and affordability; we can assault our traditional values and cultural institutions without eroding the nation’s character; unbridled, illegal immigration without assimilation will lead to multicultural Nirvana; and we will be secure at home if we’ll just be nicer to foreign nations and more sensitive to the terrorists’ concerns.

But what about conservatives? Do we also need a reminder that free nations are the exception in world history and that our liberty was purchased with the greatest sacrifices and will ultimately disappear without a rededication to our founding principles?

Read it all. Then tell Fred Thompson to get some fire in his belly.

His greatest strength is that he doesn’t need to be president. But his greatest failure is that he doesn’t recognize the necessity of at least acting as though we need him to be president. If the strength of his own convictions is this weak, what is there to entrust to him?

Huck-A-Bust Not Just Romney’s Drumming

Huckabee is a Christian, and I welcome him and love him as a brother in Christ. But his politics and views are not good for the country.

His views on illegal immigration are terrible, involving the giving away of American money to people who’ve broken the law.

His views on foreign policy are immature and inane and will result in more erosion of world stability, not just American reputation. Reading his primary article outlining foreign policy, I get the feeling he considers current American foreign policy to be akin to biggest bully on the block mentality:

The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out.

And Romney, while being vocal in pointing out the problems with Huckabee’s positions, is not the only one beating that drum.

From MyManMitt comes and extensive list of prominent conservative leaders and their qualms with Huckabee, including:

We have before us an historic election: the nation desires further change, traditional media is obviously failing in balance and importance and is taking extraordinary steps to try and reclaim their relevance.

The country has seen the change offered by the Democrats and their complete failure to implement any of that change even from a position of strength given them by the people in 2006.

Therefore we have before us a chance to elect another conservative Republican with a good chance of being able to spend 8 years enacting further meaningful and long lasting change in the Courts, in policy, in the War on Terror, and in America’s economy

The stakes are high and the cost of failure is something I will not even begin to consider.

Huckabee is not the man for the job.