About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Racial Harmony? America is the Great Pretender

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, July 27, 2009 6:04:14 PM
 

Face it America: "racial harmony" is a false premise to begin with. In the USA, everything is racial.

 

And enough of Henry Gates: Although a Harvard "intellectual", his picture more resembles the abominable snowman - and someone who seldom brushes his teeth. From the appearances of his ranting TV shot, you can almost imagine the bad breath- pity that poor Cambridge police sergeant .

 

At the end of his rambling (tepid) press conference on reforming health care, did you notice how Obama (our post-racial anti-president) lit up like a 200-watt bulb, when asked about the "racially-charged" Gates/cop confrontation?

 

Predictably, before he could conceive a politically-correct answer, El Presidente AUTOMATICALLY took sides with professor Gates - even without knowing the facts.

 

But the word "automatically" is the salient point - revealing how we all subconsciously think about "race."

 

Deep down inside, Mr. Obama probably couldn't help it. 

In any "race-related" disagreement, the natural tendency for one is to stick (identify) with your "own kind."

 

When two boxers, or for that matter, two teams- each being of opposite racial composition- are competing in the arena, whose side does the sports fan AUTOMATICALLY take 98% of the time? (The other 2% are liars).

 

This is why debating about "racism" is - for all intents and purposes- completely useless.  Despite overpowering political correctness (plus all the pretending) the tendency to side with one's race will supersede rationality EVERYTIME.

 

The 1975 Pittsburgh Pirates had an incredible, record-setting team average of .295 for that year. Their power-laden lineup of batters was indeed exciting. But the first-place Pirates drew spotty attendance for much of that season.

 

Then, a local sportswriter in the "Pittsburgh Post Gazette" published a quote from an old- time fan, who summed it up, citing: (quote) "There were too many 'colored' players on the team."

 

But by phrasing the problem in old-fashioned terms, the old "racist" Pirate fan had merely chosen to stop pretending, and let his true feeling be known.

 

But herein lies the problem: as long as we perpetuate this insipid PRETENDING within our society, race relations will conflict indefinitely. But don't count on the pretensions to cease anytime soon.

 

Nowadays, everyone pretends that urban public school students attend classes to learn; but if any actually try, they are pilloried (attacked) by their peers for "acting white;" self- defeating behavior, but nonetheless, supported by their "culture".

 

Likewise, if  border-crossing "illegals" stopped pretending they wanted to become Americans- instead of welfare spongers - we could begin to address so-called "discrimination" against Latinos, who refuse to speak our English language.

 

Indeed, these are the two great pretenses that are the crux of America's racial problem.

 

But are urban minority students- or for that matter, Latinos - any less capable than Caucasians? Of course not.

 

There is an old axiom that says, "you can educate beyond ignorance... but you can't fix stupid."

 

The is not at all to infer that "minorities" are stupid; but as long as they exhibit this foolish phenomenon of self-imposed ignorance, the "racial divide" will continue for perhaps another 100 years.

 

Discrimination? Of course. 

 

After all, who WOULDN"T discriminate against anyone - be they white, black, Latino - who cannot conjugate their verbs correctly, talks "jive," and presents themselves to society with an image of defiance. Some melting pot, eh?

 

America has two defiant cultures, who inexplicably deny themselves proper education, and/or, totally refuse to speak proper English- yet insist upon being treated with COMPLETE equality.

 

So is it racism holding them back... or realism?

 

The great paradox of racial harmony can be found in America's workplace, where people of all colors interact proficiently; yet after quitting time, choose to go their own separate way.

 

In the USA, we witness the propensity toward self-imposed racism - separation by choice.

 

Our college campuses have white fraternities...and black fraternities.

 

On cable television, there's B E T (black entertainment television); and then there's the Black Miss America pageant.

 

In school cafeterias across the country, black students insist on segregating themselves.

 

But as long as there are black people, white people, and Hispanics, there will never exist complete racial harmony in America,  because although we are all equal, we are not all the same.

 

And for any liberal who begs to differ, let us introduce two examples of "racial profiling,"

and how it subconsciously affects the way people think in our so-called "white-dominated" society:

 

Racial Profiling Example #1: You are a white employer, having interviewed two very promising young candidates:

 

First Candidate - an articulate Caucasian female with a degree from Princeton, graduating with honors.

 

Second Candidate - an equally articulate black male, who graduated from Grambling near the top of his class.

 

So would you automatically hire the first candidate strictly because of her race, then reject the second, on those same grounds?

 

Of course not.

 

Most employers may actually feel compelled to hire candidate number two, because well-spoken, educated black males ALWAYS command a certain type of intangible respect that's hard to define -yet it exists. And having this type of "diversity" is the "cool" thing to do.

 

But conversely, NO EMPLOYER of any color would hire anyone - white, black, Latino, male or female - if they appear uneducated, with one's attire hanging loosely, and not having good command of the English language.

 

And for all you Al Sharptons out there, this is not racism: The most distasteful people in our society (in general), are the unemployable, who suffer the "Cool Hand Luke" syndrome: a "failure to communicate" with anyone, except their "own kind."

 

Racial Profiling Example #2: You wake up at 3am with a ominous pain in the lower abdomen, and drive yourself to the emergency room.

 

While lying waiting on the gurney, you discover there are but two interns on duty: one, a "hippie-looking" white intern with a scraggly goatee, and the other is black, with an immaculately-trimmed haircut.

 

So which would you prefer to examine you?

 

Because of "racial profiling," would you not think to yourself: "Hmmph...a BLACK doctor? He MUST be exceptionally brilliant."

 

And is this not the exact same reason why Barack Obama became our first African-American president?

 

In America, proper education -or permitting oneself to be properly educated- is what enables everyone to achieve equality; and once all the so-called oppressed, harassed, profiled, hated, discrimanted-against "minorities" begin realizing it, then and only then will the great "cultural divide" of racism be breached.

 

Bottom line: Irrespective of color, people perceived to be articulate and well-educated command respect in America; and for the best-paying jobs, no others need apply.

 

No matter how many "equality laws" are legislated, or the degree of political correctness demanded of our society, there will always be discrimination - by the educated, against the ignorant.

 

So let's all meet at the Whitehouse - have a brew - and for once, stop all this stupid phony pretending.

 

 

 www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The difference between patriotism-- and being patriotic.

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, April 20, 2009 7:09:42 PM

October 19, 1781, Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown-- the end of the American Revolution.

It was widely believed that General George Washington, who had miraculously led the colonial insurrection against England, would then appoint himself as king of the new American nation, and reward himself for having risked the "best years of life" to achieve the victory.

But Washington voluntarily resigned as Commander in Chief in an act of supreme humility.

The entire world was literally astounded! Never before in western history had someone refused the opportunity to be made king.

Most people had assumed that General Washington, as America's most-powerful man, would declare himself as its almighty ruler. Even King George III is said to have nearly toppled over in surprise, declaring that Washington was... "the greatest man alive today."

Washington had resigned because he believed in government by law, not by monarchs and dictators. And the last thing he wanted to do was to remain in the celebrity spotlight, let alone fulfill his destiny as America's first president.

February 4, 1789--the day for America's initial presidential election. After the Electoral college had sent their sealed ballots to the newly-formed United States Congress, it was announced that George Washington had unanimously received the nomination.

But the reluctant Washington yearned for privacy. He had fought for years in the French & Indian war, and then led the Continental army to one miracle victory after another.

So all the war-weary Washington was thinking about was going back home, and working around the yard at his gorgeous, newly-remodeled estate in Mt. Vernon, with its bucolic riverfront view.

Yet Washington realized that America looked upon him as their hero, and out of sheer calling to duty, he figured he could serve 4 quick years, and then head for the hills back home in rural New York.

But the new American nation had other plans: After his first term, Washington was again unanimously re-elected president, because everyone seemed to agree that only HE could do the job, and with good reason.

By the middle of the 1790's, America was consumed by the threat of another foreign war-- either with Britain OR France– plus the dangerous power struggle between Hamilton and Jefferson.

But what if Washington had not been a patriot? Could the new nation have avoided blundering itself into yet a second war with the British? After all, the Americans had been remarkably fortunate to have won the first.

At the end of the war, the British refused to withdraw their troops from the Ohio River Valley-- a promise broken in the treaty of Ghent. From their forts along the Ohio, the British now supplied Indians with weapons to use on migrating American settlers.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the French told America, "you owe us big-time,” claiming that America was bound by its 1778 treaty to fight alongside them vs. the British. In addition, both nations threatened piracy--to confiscate the cargo of American trading ships-- which could have destroyed America's growing economy.

But Washington, through his supreme foresight, wisely steered America from the popular call for a second war of independence, and the colony-states once again had survived yet another grave crisis from abroad.

Back during the founding of our republic, there existed a plethora of great American statesman--all who were God-fearing men willing to sacrifice their own personal agendas for love of country-- the true definition of patriotism.

But nowadays, where have all the patriots gone? The nation is literally destroying itself upon the rocks of polarization and partisan politics.

And whither the Republicans, the so-called party of patriotism? Where are all their leaders? And where are all their patriots? Currently, the GOP is a ship adrift without a rudder- there are no true leaders-- and sadly, no true patriots.

Oh sure, we could cite those famous conservative radio talkers, ala Hannity, Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, et al; but are they patriotic enough to step forward and run for the presidency? Instead of serving in Washington, they have chosen to safely remain above the fray, saying to themselves..."I'll just write a book instead."

But what if George Washington had chosen to write a book, and retire at Mount Vernon in a life of luxury? How would history have gone for our new nation?  Would there even be a United States of America today?

Unlike Washington (and the heroic men of his time), the radio talk show "heroes" of our day choose not to give up the affluent lifestyle they cherish, because it would be "too much of a sacrifice" in lieu of service for their country.

And what about the democrats who now hold sway in Washington DC? Most of them would rather surrender their first-born, rather than admit to being "not patriotic."

But the reality is that we have the Constitution-hating Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House; we have big government-promoting Harry Reid as Senate majority leader-- both in charge of a pack of leftist, power-crazed, self-promotional despots, who could care less about their country-- and unlike George Washington--seek only to retain their positions in government.

Back in the 1780's, we had the Founding Fathers; but now in the first decade of the 21st century,  we have the scheming plotters--a treacherous, treasonous, calculating band of legislative desperados, who defy the Constitution's stated purpose of a limited government, and seek to make the federal monster an end itself, rather than a means to an end-- the "posterity" of the people.

Looking back upon our nation's history, it seemed as though it was God's providence itself that created our nation, and allowed it to survive to this present day.

During the one-sided battle of Long Island, General Washington was badly routed, and saved from total annihilation only by the onset of darkness. The Continental Army had been surrounded by the British on both land and sea.

And then came the "divine fog', which immobilized Admiral Howe's English fleet.

Miraculously, under the cover of bad weather, Washington's troops were able to ferry across the East River to Manhattan on the night of August 29, 1776. The British high command remained in utter ignorance of the evacuation, and when they charged into the American positions the next  morning for the kill, they found nothing but empty trenches.

So was it "Divine intervention" (the fog) that had permitted Washington's army (and the survival of the revolution) to fight another day?

And in the most crucial moment of the three-day battle at Gettysburg, was it again that same intervention, in the defense of Little Round Top, that has served to shape the destiny of the America ever since? Had the 20th Maine Regiment been driven off that hill, the Battle of Gettysburg might have had a different outcome, and the South may have gone on to capture nearby Washington DC, and would win the Civil War.

All throughout the early 1860's, it seemed that God's providence once again saved America, as exemplified by the selfless patriotism of Abraham Lincoln.

Had Lincoln not been elected in 1860, could America have survived to this day?

Lincoln could have lived the life of a successful, practicing trial lawyer in Illinois, and amassed wealth and fortune; but instead, he traveled to Washington & ran for the presidency in noble, altruistic service his country-- all at the time of its greatest peril.

So "armed" with all the above evidence, can anyone think otherwise that America has become a wealthy, independent nation, other than because of the blessings of God, who always seemed to have the right men in the right places at the right time, that has resulted in the miracle of  the United States of America?

If we were to examine a timeline, it seems as though God's providence seemed to emerge just in time every fifty years, for after 1865, it was as though America had slipped into a dark age of its own:

In that shameful period after Lincoln, American history saw a half-century of mistakes and ineptness. Then again miraculously, a president emerged to move our country back on course to its original ideals of a great nation.

From 1865 to 1900, the nation experienced mostly a succession of non-descript, mediocre leaders, until the fateful assassination of William McKinley, and the unplanned ascendancy of Theodore Roosevelt to the White house.

It was true blue patriotism that literally flowed through Teddy Roosevelt's veins:

He had been a hero in the Spanish-American war; he led the suicide charge up San Juan hill and survived without a scratch-- God's providence? A man of great foresight, Roosevelt immediately seized the opportunity to expand America's influence as a world power in the early 20th century.

He dug the Panama canal; he went after the monopolies of big business; he recognized the importance of keeping the European nations at bay, encouraging America to "walk softly and carry a big stick"-- the bedrock of American foreign policy ever since.

Like Lincoln before, Teddy Roosevelt had arrived at just the right time.

Then fifty years hence, God again seemed to intervene in the personna of John F. Kennedy-- America's first Catholic president.

John F. Kennedy-- reluctant, humble, World War II hero; great inspirational speech maker, with a brilliant, charismatic--yet forceful-- personality. It seemed as though Kennedy could charm beyond anyone who had ever previously served in the White House.

It was as if God Himself had rewarded America for a job well done in the previous two decades, when the U.S. saved the world from fascism in the Second World War, and had minded well the world's affairs throughout the 1950's.

After Mr. Kennedy became president (like Teddy Roosevelt), he helped America recognize its greatness as a nation as the benevolent world domineer of the 60's .

John F. Kennedy--who's family was worth an estimated $300 million-- was the consummate patriot. He was selfless in serving as president.

In the brief time in which he served, he professed the importance of "country first" over individualism. He instilled his own, forever-remembered brand of patriotic pride in Americans, who then passed it onto their baby-boomer children.

But nearly fifty years after Kennedy, has God now suddenly abandoned America, because those in Washington have now chosen to move away from Him?

Gone are the days of the great patriots in our government. Gone are the days when our elected officials can look themselves in the mirror and be proud. Gone are the days when we were taught as children, that pride was the all important trait that we inherited, and to never relinquish our pride in our selves and in our country.

And now, lacking any TRUE patriotic leaders, America's  long-term survival may be in doubt:

We’re running the biggest deficits in history-- threatening us with future insolvency.

We’re losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are moving offshore, as taxes force them to abandon the country that enabled them to grow to be great.

The nation lacks a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves.

Hard-working, middle class Americans are being squeezed every which way.

These are times that cry out for leadership--for patriotism--for someone who's wiling to sacrifice their own personal self interest (like George Washington) and serve for pure love of country-- not for themselves!

But when we look around us, we’ve got to ask: ‘Where  have all the patriotic leaders gone?’

Has God's providence now been forsaken towards our country, in the election of the atheistic Barack Obama as America's first anti-president?

In fall of 2008, at a campaign rally in Raleigh, NC, Mr. Obama angrily lashed out at John McCain's accusations that he lacked patriotism... “Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country.”

But In Barack Obama's eyes, what's to love about a country that he never grew up in? What's to love about a country that he was taught as a youth to hate? And what's to love about a place, when your very own spouse shares your view that America is a "downright mean country," and has nothing to be proud of?

Yes- can anyone expect Barack Obama to exhibit any patriotism, when he literally has nothing in common with most Americans, having grown up in Indonesia and Hawaii, and knows not of what it is to love a country that he actually may not even possess legal citizenship?

Yes America --we're now being led by an anti-president who has little in common with us, and who literally despises all America stands for, and what made it great: patriotism, love of God, and above all-- duty to country.

On the morning of September 27th,1963 a marxist sympathizer (and presumed atheist), Lee Harvey Oswald, applied for a visa at the Cuban Embassy in New Orleans, stating that he was seeking a meeting with Fidel Castro. On the application, it was noted: "The applicant states that he is a member of the American Communist Party."

The visa was rejected.

Before this, Oswald had been the first U.S. Marine ever to defect to the Soviet Union. And ironically. after a only a year in Russia, he was expelled back to America as probable CIA spy.

Today, the history of mankind is filled with "what ifs" and "if only" events. And in American history, this is one of the big 'what-ifs':

What if Oswald had been detained by the CIA as a spy, and not been able to return to the USA from Russia? What if he had NOT gone back to his mother's hometown (Fort Worth) where ironically, a friend helped him get a job working at the Texas Book Depository in Dallas?

Our lives are influenced by events far beyond our capacity to perceive at that time (or understand after the fact), let alone be able to predict in advance.

On a bright sunny day in Dallas-- Nov 22, 1963, Lyndon Johnson became President after a lone gunman-marxist traitor took out his venom on America, and assassinated perhaps its most beloved president of all time. 

And like the classic 1971 song from Don McClain..."that was the day the music-- and true patriotism in America-- may have died."


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Duh, socialism? That's no worry to me!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:47:49 PM

Don't laugh. Do not deride the stark reality at hand. National socialism (in its most subtle form) is on our collective doorsteps. That's right boys 'n girls...the Washington Nazis are clicking their heels, all in lockstep (goosesteps) with our new almighty fuehrer, Barack Obama.
 
Of course this foolish notion-- that Obama is like Hitler, and the leftists in Congress are his Nazi henchmen-- is blatantly silly, and smacks of right wing exagerration. But does it really?
 
Example: Barack Obama recently has said, "Americans shouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh". Now analyze that. When is the last time a president attempted to use the bully pulpit to verbally censor freedom of speech, with the objective of eliminating an opposing political view? And according to Obama, the conservative talkers on the radio are seen by our 44th president as public enemy #1!
 
How un-American is this? Since when did politicians in this country not allow an opponent a fair shot at them? Well, since Barack Obama got elected
 
Example #2: our good buddy, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, has all but officially banned Ann Coulter's conservative, anti-leftist new book. Said Emanuel, "Not a single Republican elected official has stepped forward to reject her "hate", so I have to conclude they are comfortable with her as their spokesperson".
 
You heard correctly-- holy prime minister Rahm Emanuel, has somehow come to an obtuse, Marxist conclusion that all conservatives in Congress are now to be held up as officially being "in opposition the State"-- heil!
 
Think...since when did the government assume the role of censor? Or that we "not read this," or "do not listen to THAT person"? Is this not eerily reminiscent of that frightful night in Germany known as Chrystalnacht (1938), where the Nazis burned all the "forbidden" books?
 
But they say, "Oh, this is America...or...''Doh, this couldn't happen here". Well hello there Homer-- take a look... it's happening.
 
Coming up for a vote soon is the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which will ban conservative talk radio from the airways, classifying it as unfair, divisive, hate speech. Yes- it will OUTLAW free speech over the air. Scratch the First Amendment; score another one for the Washington Nazis (the national Obammunist party). 
 
But this is RULE #1-- the standard modus operandi for any socialist (communist) leader who wants to assume absolute power:  "First...you Create A Common Enemy."
 
Recall back in his '08 campaign; Barack Obama cleverly "incited the masses" against both George Bush, and Wall Street, blaming them for every American ill, from unemployment to whooping cough. So he succeeded very well at RULE #1.
 
And now as president, Obama is taking aim at popular media conservatives, such as Limbaugh and Hannity, and attempting to paint them as divisive, hateful enemies of the "common good" (i.e., enemies of the State)-- heil again! 
 
Yup-- it's right out the manual-- text book Marxism being brandished by our freshly inaugurated, and overtly confident new leader.
 
And how about that word, "socialist''? Do the majority of Americans even realize what the term stands for? Of course they don't!
 
Most of our dumbed-down population undoubtedly associates it with the Orwellian fictional book "1984", where the 'thought police' storm into a room and arrest someone. Or that socialism conjures up the Gestapo, bashing the door down, with submachine guns at the ready. But they're missing the point by a country mile.
 
No boys and girls, socialism has nothing to do with soldiers. It has nothing to do with violence-prone policemen. And it has nothing to do with rebellion. But it does have everything to do with eliminating people's status as individuals, and elevating the government to the point of controlling our lives. That's the real danger-- that we are destined to become numbers, rather than individual private citizens. And since the individiual is now totally subservient to the state, privacy is destined to become extinct.
 
Oh, and that "social" security card we all MUST have? That was the brainchild of Franklin D. Roosevelt...our first socialist president! 
 
So now its time for our history lesson:
 
Question #1)What does Nazi stand for? Answer -the national SOCIALIST party (of Germany)
Question #2) What does USSR stand for? Answer- the union of soviet SOCIALIST republics.
 
But most Americans (residing within their cocoons of  individual comfort) don't see it that way .They don't percieve Barack Obama's socialist big government as any threat. They don't hold the Fairness Doctrine up as someting to be feared. "Duh, like...I just don't see how any of this affects me...uh."
 
Just you wait.
 
How about socialized medicine? Sounds pretty neat, doesn't it? "Da comrade! We vill be socialized in our health care!" Yes, wonderful socialized medicine is coming to a hospital near you. "Oh goody, we will meet a lot of really cool people while were bring treated for free".
 
That seems to be the image most Americans propably have about socialized medicine... or else they would not have voted for it when they pulled the lever for Obama
 
But what socialist medicine actually means is the next time you get really sick, your individual illness no longer becomes important; and the doctor (or whomever treats you) could care less.
 
So in reality, you must first report to a bureaucreat, and present evidence that you're sick. Then, get in line... another  bureaucreat dertermines your level of care (not a nurse or doctor). Next, you report to some unfamiliar doctor's office; wait for who knows how long (because nobody cares), and get treated by a doctor with a not-so-gentle bedside manner .
 
Note: the doctor's livelihood (paid by the government) now has nothing to do with his reputation as a good practitioner, because instead of his own private practice, the socialized doctor is merely practicing on you ( whatever the outcome); and making way for the next number-- er, patient.
 
And don't ever think of sueing for malpractice in an iatrogenic (faulty) medicine lawsuit, or for an operation not so well done. Not with socialized medicine. No way. You have to live with their mistake and suffer accordingly. Yes America; ignorance is not bliss.
 
And how about "Card Check? This is yet another socialist-communist law  to reduce our individual  freedom on the job. Card check will soon come up for a vote in Congress this year. And once it passes, the entire character of our country's work force (and workplace) will change overnight.
 
Under Card Check, outside union bosses come into a company and all but force each individual worker to sign a card, obligating them to a join a union-- against their will. The purpose? Simple . Eliminate all opposition by eliminating the current method done by secret ballot, which will open up anyone who resists to union intimidation until they join....("We know where you live").  It's a Gestapo-like measure that will eliminate individualism on the job forever. Yes--forever.
 
So just how Gestapo-like is card check? Try this-- once you sign the card, the union takes hold in your company PERMANENTLY. Yes! Those are the provisions of the bill; you're forever unionized...no going back.
 
That's right, passing card check means no time limit-- your company's unionized PERMANENTLY. And you the worker, have no say in your salary, or your hourly, or your benefits, or your work conditions, or your days off. Nothing. You're  just one of the group now Buddy-- like it or lump it.
 
So now, you, as an individual, mean nothing to the union...just your weekly dues, which go to the union bosses, and are applied toward the perpetual re-election campaigns of the democrats in power . Nice work Obama & company.
 
And the provisions of card check allow for an outside union arbitrator, who comes in every other year, to re-negotiate your contract with the company. 
 
Once again, you have no voice- but  that's what happens by merely signing the card. If you plan on making a career of your job, you have just literally signed your life away.
 
Well, the unions contributed  $50 million to the Obama campaign, so this is their payback.
 
So are we gettin' any warmer about what socialism really means? It means, one by one, we lose our freedom  to conduct our lives as individuals.
 
It means that you are no longer in America, but in some foreign country resting upon the land mass between the Atlantic &  the Pacific, somewhere below Canada and above Mexico. The same geography, but an all but totalitarian different way of life altogether.
 
But Americans will lamely stand by and watch this all unfold in Congress before their very eyes. They absolutely won't care until it affects them individually --and then, it's too late.
 
But its not too late . Congressional midterms elections are coming up in two years.
 
However, an apathetic and selfish America, misled by our socialist liberal press, will continue to return the same old Congressional power-lusting Nazis back to incumbency, so they can finish the job under the fearless leadership of Barack Obama.
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack Obama...President of the world?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:23:37 PM

Well lookee-lookee! Did the cat slip out of the bag? Carol Browner, Obama's proud choice for climate Czar, was recently "unearthed" as a member of the radical socialist (Stalinist) organization known as "Socialist International" (S.I.). And these people aren't exactly your basic local rotary club, but rather a leftist hardball group determined to put forth their radical environmental agenda upon the ENTIRE world.

S. I. calls for the, "redesign of the international rules on intellectual property." That's bureaucrat lingo for compelling an inventor to surrender property rights in order to "share" technologies with less-developed countries. So Ms. Browner--can we get any more socialist than compelling all U.S. inventors to "share" with less developed countries? What in the name of Thomas Edison are you planning?
 
Despite the controversy, president elect Obama, who chose the ex-60's radical Browner for this all-important cabinet position, staunchly supports the nomination, declaring that, "Climate change will be a priority of my administration". Supposedly, in the name of stimulating the economy, Obama plans to spend at least 500 billion dollars (which the government does not have) to convert the economy from carbon-based fuels, to greener alternatives. 
 
The main focus of Socialist International centers on America, as the world's largest energy user, must shrink its economic output (energy usage) in conjunction with the smaller countries of the world increasing theirs. And the mechanism for this philosophy is based not upon climatological factors, but on economic ones-- a third world wealth transfer done incognito through the U.N.
 
An in-depth look at Socialist International would reveal that the organization is pushing hard for "global governance", and that America must shrink its economy, whose energy usage emits far too much Co2, in deference to smaller nations, which emit miniscule amounts of Co2. 
 
But looking inward, this climate change guilt trip is really nothing more than an excuse to tax energy users and providers, and send the money to the U.N. to be distributed to third world dictators abroad. The goal? Increasing the political power of the Obama administration to all continents....i.e. Barack Obama-- president of the world!
 
Socialist International purports all the shop-worn liberal mantras: peak oil; co2 is a pollutant; we've reached the verge of irreversible climate devastation; and the U.S. is poisoning the atmosphere. And all this can only be "counteracted" by cap-n-trade. But why would S.I. wish to shrink the U.S. economy in favor of third world countries, such as Zimbabwe, or even Venezuela?
 
First, let's shed all the arguments about human-generated global warming.This brand new theory postulates a more plausible (and diabolical) presentation of the real underlying agenda of Socialist International, Carol Browner, Obama, and all the other enviro-marxists, They're all actually hiding within a "smokescreen", under the guise of saving the environment.
 
So why do they purport this Machiavellian masquerade? Lets officially brand it as, "The smoke screen theory". 
 
The foundation of this theory rests upon the conservative right always thinking, "You liberals  ARE really stupid, believing that man can change the climate".  But herein lies the brilliance--who are the ones ACTUALLY being stupid? 
 
One thing you cannot deny is that many liberals are decidedly brilliant, and politically astute about obtaining positions of power-- which begs the question..."What if these liberals actually realize that global warming via mankind is sheer scientific folly, but they're cleverly using it as a 'cover story' for obfuscating their real agenda, wealth transfer, and the worlwide consolidation of their political power.
 
Therefore, the smoke screen theory can be explained like this: These enviro-marxists use global warming as a way to hoodwink all the world from their true intent---cementing  cap and trade laws into permanent existence, which will produce giant sucking sounds of seemingly boundless money flowing to the government, via the environmental taxation of all the energy producers and energy users in the United States.
 
Its almost like a plot from the old "Batman" TV series of the mid 60's... "We environmentalists feign stupidity, and outsmart all those on the right who think we're the fools"...ha-ha!
 
The smokescreen theory is designed to turn the tables, and outfox the right..."Go ahead and argue with us, you foolish conservatives; we, the liberals, have the media on OUR side...we have the school children on OUR side; we have assumed the moral majority of an ignorant American electorate over to OUR side. And because of all this, we intend to keep it this way!"
 
"And beginning this January 21, we will get our climate change legislation railroaded  through congress, and tax the heavy industries, coal companies, and utilities out of existence; and then, put forth our green agenda. And you cannot stop us, because socialism is now mainstream".
 
So is the smoke screen theory sounding pretty clear now, or do we need some further explanation?

Socialist International, the people who feed us all this alarmist B.S., is treating Americans as if they are too foolish to know what the REAL political spectrum is about-- subversion of the capitalist system, and advancing the cause of socialism by whatever means necessary (i.e. artificial environmentalism to obtain political power over the entire world).
 
NEXT: let's introduce the future icing on the enviro-marxist cake--senate bill s1389; a bill to authorize a National Science Foundation Climate Change "Education Program". Look for it to be introduced first thing into the senate on Jan 22.
 
Of course any proposal with the phrase "education program"  sound innocuous enough, but what is even more interesting, Senate bill 1389A was authored by no less than His Highness, Barack Obam-0h.
 
And the nuts and bolts of bill 1389 requires the establishment of an education program to:
(1) broaden the understanding of the possible consequences of climate change,
2) apply the latest scientific discoveries to provide "learning opportunities"
for people (brainwashing);
(3) emphasize "actionable information" (more leftist brainwashing) to help people promote implementation of energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction.
(4) postulate potential solutions to the "problem." 
 
So who's going to pay for all these directives to fight climate change? WE will. How? The Obama administration will tax the coal companies, power plants, steel companies, and all of heavy industry according to their usage of fossil fuels; they will be required to buy carbon credits, and trade with nations that produce no energy or emissions .
 
"No business will be allowed to emit any greenhouse gases for free,” Obama declared. “Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution.”

Perfect! Why has a politician not thought of this before? Only someone as diabolical as Obama could have thought of charging for pollution, and be clever enough to sell it to America.
 
Obama's plan would require all credits to be purchased at auction, rather than allocated by industry -- a move ensuring that all "polluters" pay for every ton of emissions released. It's also a move that would massively increase the political power of his administration and go along way toward international wealth redistribution to the third world--a cause Obama and Browner fanatically (but esoterically) have supported for many years.
 
And by appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy.

The incoming chief executive stands at the very foundation of the smoke screen theory--environmental policies aren't really about protecting or preserving the earth, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.

This enviro-radicalism of the Chosen One could push the nation so far to the left, we will never again recover the right path to sound energy policy, and get back to the economic expansion America has always enjoyed, because of the freedom we once had from government restriction.
 
And with the huge, predictable price increases of energy as a result of this enviro-radicalism, everytime we fill up our tanks, or mail in our electric bills, it'll be us--not business-- who'll really be paying the so-called price for pollution.
 
The smokescreen theory will go along way explaining how a scientifically challenged American electorate supports Obama's green-leaning rhetoric- which is nothing but a half veiled attempt to implement a clearly ideological, leftist agenda.
 
This is all part of an even more hidden agenda-- an undeclared war on capitalism; and its implementation will significantly alter the fabric of American society, as we have known it for decades.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"A Call to All Workers...Join the Obama Crusade- Safeguard Your Right To Become A Drone!"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:58:08 PM

Recently at a 'Rally For Change' speech, before an enthusiastic crowd of 2,000 at the Pittsburgh Soldiers and Sailors Museum, Michelle Obama enchanted the audience with a heart-wrenching story; it was about how she and her husband had "struggled" to achieve success in life, and that they understood the worries and needs of most middle-class Americans.

She began:

..."I've been blessed over the last 21 months to have been invited into your communities, and to hear so many of your personal stories.

Supporters like you have told me about loved ones who can't afford health care, or college; and relatives who've been laid off from jobs they've had for decades. But what I've heard more than anything else is hope. A shared hope that if we work together, we can change politics and make this country better for all Americans.

My husband and I came from working class families; it gave us a unique perspective on life: and this will allow Barack to better understand the needs of working families everywhere in this country...that's what he'll work for...and that's the great American Dream we are all fighting for!"

She then went on to touch on topics regarding health care, education, and retirement. Then she ended her talk, exhorting the crowd with ..."don't we all deserve a leader who really understands the problems of working families in America? (wild applause).

But gee whiz, oh wonderful Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama, if only you could have then played Paul Harvey, you would have been able to use his famous phrase..."and now, you're going to hear...THE REST of the story!...
 
..."My husband never worked a hard day in his life. If you handed him a shovel, he might require some on-the-job-training. We were given everything by the government...we were admitted to college because of affirmative action. We did not have the ivy-league grades to qualify for Harvard, but we both managed to ride in on a minority quota; and we paid for everything with government grants. That's why Barack and I have so much in common!

Neither of us worked our way through school. We spent much of our time with militant campus groups, and writing our pro-socialist thesis, which have recently  been withdrawn from all public access. And that's why no transcript exists of my husband: it might spoil the story of his not-so-heroic rise to the top!

And once Barack becomes President, he'll show great compassion for the working man. In fact once he gets in, many workers won't be bothered with having to work any more. He will pass the Employee Freedom of Choice Act.

But actually, we might call it the "Union- end-of-your-job Act", because you workers all will be free at last from those dreadful secret ballots. And those inspirational outside union organizers will now take the liberty to descend upon your workplace, and strong-arm the employees into forming a union! And all it will take is a simple 51% "majority" vote! Now won't that be easy?

This will create a plethora of new union workers and bosses. And that'll be just so many more union supporters, who will all labor diligently to re-elect my husband. So don't you all see it? Yes! We're doing this all for you.

And now, with your higher union wages, every worker will be equal, and everyone on the job will be paid the same. Motivation will disappear...productivity will fall dramatically, and that will drive up costs for your employer.

And this will eventually lead to a powerful wave of newly-outsourced jobs from America...which will give you all the benefit of an early retirement!

Yes; now you see how Barack will help all the working families of America...you will now be paid for not even having to work! Drones for Obama! That will be our call to action for his re-election! He'll be the first President ever, who showed you how to game the system like he did, and skate through life without EVER doing any hard work!

Thank you everyone... and God bless America"...


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and wife- tag team of hypocrisy

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 6:19:45 PM

Barack Obama has solemnly campaigned as a reformer for health care for everyone, and ending all prejudice against those with pre-existing conditions.

But few Americans realize the blatant hypocricy that he and his wife have displayed toward indigent individuals who have demonstrated the most need.

Mrs. Obama worked for the University of Chicago Hospital as a "community outreach director". Her job was to steer uninsured poor people away from the hospital's emergency room, and literally dump them on neighboring medical facilities. In street parlance, she basically was the hospital bouncer, so that only affluent, well-insured patients were admitted.

At 5' 11", Michelle Obama is no shrinking violet. She quickly developed her expertise at "patient re-location", and was rewarded by the hospital for her valiant efforts.

In March 2005, Michelle Obama was promoted to "vice president for external affairs", and had her annual salary tripled from $121,910 to $316,962. But by the most remote of coincidences, this was just 2 months after her husband had been sworn in as a U.S Senator (Jan "05)

In his steadfast duty to God and country, one of Barack's first accomplishments in the U.S. Senate was a government grant...out of the 8 million dollar list of new earmarks he requested, $1 million would go for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University of Chicago Med Center.

The hospital was greatly relieved...and had definitely been in dire need of a pavilion for its vital operations, and may have been in danger of closing down without it.
There is no end to the dedication of the Obamas to their community and country. Yessir...once you have community service in your blood, there's no turning back.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »