A Conservative's View: The Remmers Report blog was created to listen to all sides of political, economic and interesting points of view discussed in an intelligent manner. As we grow and establish our street creds, we welcome perspectives that differ from ours. This is the first posting from a true conservative. His name is John Cothern, a health insurance broker from Huntington Beach, Calif. He filed these remarks Wednesday, the day after Barack Obama was elected president. It has been edited only for purposes of brevity. John, it's all yours:
The reason behind "change" is to create solidarity (the feeling or expression of union in a group formed by a common interest) was clear in the acceptance speech last night, where it was stated he needed to win over more of the populous to his side. He even went so far as to ask for more acceptance (he needs to win more of us over?)...to what? For what? There is still no goal stated or established in any speech or discussion - ever! If there is ever to be "change," there must be a goal of common interest, hence solidarity. If only emotional "feelings" create that solidarity, which is what we have just seen, then a "hidden agenda" (the goal) may turn out to be the rudest of rude awakenings, and if that goal is only to sway the opinion of the masses to make "radical" change, then the major change will occur in not only what we believe in, but also how we believe (our ability to reason logically). The first step - remove the basis for your beliefs from religion - take God from the equation (looks as if that's working too), remove the concept of Jesus (especially his teachings). Now your morality is questioned and ethics no longer has importance. Then you have human beings in doubt and back to their basic emotions, seeking the unattainable fantasy. We just "feel" things are not quite right, and we don't know what is wrong, thus we must need "change." Saul Alinsky's (an abject Marxist) "Rules for Radicals" produced this excerpt: "The means-and-ends moralists...The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be" is exactly my point of reference. It is the exact reason for change. The fantasy or quest to change what the "world as it is" to what "...it should be" is essentially the root that can bring about radical upheaval. Just look at Kenya. It's a freaking mind game plying good against evil. What better way to do it then to create division (those who believe in him, and those who do not), which is an intermediate goal. Then ask the balance (the non believers) to come over to his side (in other words, give him a chance) to provide the ultimate authority he needs to make radical change to everything as you knew "it to be" to what "it should be." That only exists in his mind, and I've never been in there. There's but one thing left, and that is for the rest of us to slip into a coma. Don't forget, freedom is what "it should be."
A Rebuttal: Having just awakened from a coma, I agree and have said earlier that Barack Obama's change message hammered throughout his 19-month trek to election could be defined any number of ways: Against eight years of the Bush administration, against how lobbyists control Congress, for a fresh bottom-up approach to governing, etc. However, during the course of the campaign, Obama established himself on enough issues that by Nov. 4 52% of the voters believed he was credible to be our commander-in-chief. Despite a limited voting record to support his intentions, he convinced us otherwise. The ball is now in his court. The fantasies end.
2 comments:
About Obama, Cothern states that "there is still no goal stated or established in any speech or discussion - ever!" I wonder where Cothern has been. How about getting us out of the economic mess that we're in. For that, yes, he needs to win more people over- namely Republicans. Obama would like to work across the aisle to accomplish that goal.
Another goal he has made plainly clear is the goal to get out of Iraq in a responsible manner and redirect troops to where the real fight is- Afghanistan. That is also an area where Republicans can be supportive as we are currently spending 10 billion a month on what has always been an unnecessary war in Iraq.
A third obvious goal is beginning to improve the health care system in this country, something else that would benefit Republicans and Democrats alike.
I would challenge Republicans and those who did not support Obama to save the criticism for when he actually becomes president and screws up. Until then, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and rally behind him for the good of our country. IF he makes a mess of everything like (some would argue) Carter did in the late 70's, then fine, go at him.
Finally, Cothern states "The first step - remove the basis for your beliefs from religion - take God from the equation (looks as if that's working too), remove the concept of Jesus (especially his teachings). Now your morality is questioned and ethics no longer has importance."
Bringing up this idea that Obama is rejecting or leaving out Jesus's teachings is absurd! I would challenge any Christian to show me where in Matthew, Luke, Mark or John Jesus outlines the basis for the Republican platform. Would it be where he says it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven? No. Would it be where he advises us to turn the other cheek? No. Would it be where he at least four times condemns judgmentalism and offers that "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone?" No. So where, then? It seems to me that it is the G.O.P. that has been leaving out Jesus's teachings in recent decades. Take the log out of your own eye, before complaining about the speck that is in your brothers. There's another one from Jesus. But can Cothern and those who share his view apply Jesus's teachings to Obama and Democrats, or are we going to continue down the same old road of fear and division we've been on for so long?
It's easy to be be critical when your candidate loses. It's more mature and pro-American to get behind Obama, see what he's able to accomplish and give him all the encouragement we can muster. McCain ran a very nasty, unnecessarily condescending and desperate campaign at the end. He could not compete intellectually or clearly demonstrate his lack of alignment with most of Bush's stands, hence he got thumped. His choice of Palin was another coffin nail ... can you imagine her as president? That alone would scare any truly informed voter, regardless of their party affiliation.
Post a Comment