About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Best Place on Earth

 
February 23, 1945: in the middle of a hell-on-earth struggle for a desolate, 3-mile square Pacific island, a war photographer would snap an immortal picture - that of six U.S. Marines hoisting up the American flag.
 
Everyone born an American since has seen this photo:
 
The picture was such a sensation it immediately made the front pages of every American newspaper back home. Life magazine put it on its front cover. The photographer, Joe Rosenthal of the Associated Press, became famous overnight.
 
The identity of the six Marines in the picture, 3 of whom survived the carnage on Iwo Jima, all would become household names - similar to the astronauts who landed on the moon a generation later.
 
But what was it - a picture a six men and a flag - that had so aroused the American people back home? It was the overriding symbolism that the flag stood for- no one could defeat the United States, because ours was a land of the free - a country worth fighting for.
 
Back during the days of World War II, our nation's very survival was actually in doubt for a time. Again, the operative word here is FREE. And back in those days, the American flag was symbolic of everything the nation stood for - the preservation of freedom!
 
But now, several generations hence, there is trouble in America:
 
Once again our survival as a free republic is in doubt. Everywhere, our freedoms are being attacked by an even more dangerous enemy than any Axis dictator; America is at war with the liberals - vicious people who despise their own country for the very reason the rest of us all love it- because of its freedom.
 
Which of course, leads us to to ask...why do liberals have such vitriolic hate for the American flag? Yes; put an American flag in front of a liberal, and it's like waving a fire engine-red blanket before an angry bull. They see red! They foam at the mouth; they want it gone! "Get it outta my sight!"
 
Such irony!
 
That flag - the  very thing these liberals despise - is what actually gives these sickos their RIGHT to oppose it! Or speak out against it. But that's where it ends. They have no right to keep the rest of us Americans from saluting it, or displaying it, or pledging our allegiance to it, which they are so determined to do nowadays.
 
But what do they care?
 
Never mind the tens of thousands that died on Iwo Jima; or on Omaha beach; or in the horrid cold of winter 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge. Our brave soldiers once gave their lives for these anti-Americans; the same people now imperiling our freedom to display and salute our beautiful American flag.
 
But why are they so embittered toward the country that guarantees them the right to do this? What makes them so different? What is it about America they so abhor?
 
We all drink from the same water supplies. We all breath the same air. Are liberals born that way? Could liberalism be like autism, where science has yet to determine the actual cause?
 
Michael Savage -The widely-known radio talk show host - has written a book..."Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."
 
One can only conclude that the man has researched his subject well.
 
What could possibly cause a person to hate the American flag?
 
Sure, we understand that it stands for the history of a country that supposedly has been imperialistic, jingoistic, militaristic, and even downright racial in its 235-year past - but so what? Who's perfect?
 
Could have the U.S. have done things any different?
 
Slaves were imported into this country 150 years BEFORE the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In every war which the U.S. has fought, and won 'em all (except for one), have we ever kept territory, or demanded war reparations, or sent those we vanquished into bondage?
 
Or how about World War II? In the post war, did we not entirely rebuild Europe, and make sure the Japanese people had order and stability in their destroyed country, giving them the opportunity to rebuild to the prosperous free society they enjoy today?
 
But the salient point is this: THEY were the ones who started it; and we finished it; but did we rub their noses in it?
 
As far as slavery goes, is any one familiar with that five year period of horrid carnage that is called THE CIVIL WAR?
 
And there's the old liberal standby..."But look what Cheney & Bush did in Iraq!"
 
Yes, look what they did.Those people are now free from the terror of Saddam Hussein, and can actually go about on the street and rail about their new, FREELY-ELECTED government, without some secret policeman to drag them away to be tortured- then beheaded.
 
And not a DROP of Iraqi oil did we expropriate! Not a drop. So there goes that liberal argument that..."we went in there for their oil."
 
And while you're at it, if you liberals despise this county so much - instead of trying to force your anti-Americanism upon the rest of us, and stop us from displaying the flag, or saying a prayer at work or school, or just being patroitic for no other reason than, well, being patriotic -go away; stay out of it; move along.
 
Canada and Mexico are but a hop-skip 'n a jump. South America is nice and warm this time of year.
 
You'll then find out why EVERYONE in the world wants to be an American and come here; but no American - other than a fleeing criminal- is trying to escape the United States.
 
Gee, do you think it could be that freedom thing about America that everyone around the world seems to love - except the liberals. 
 
The vast majority of Americans greatly APPRECIATE their country, and the lifestyle that goes with it. They know there's literally no other land like it - no better place to live. So to all you hateful liberals; stop trying to change it.

We've fought enough wars already to protect the Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms we cherish; but if we have to, we also will battle you odious liberals to the very end, to affirm our belief that America - despite her imperfections - has always been, and will always be...the best place on earth.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No teacher left behind

 

One of the great "holes" in American revisionist history is the lack of recognition for the Know Nothing Party, and its significance before the Civil War.

 

Despite its comedic-sounding name, the party had a profound, lasting effect on American politics with its true agenda-- anti-immigration. 

 

Basically, the Know Nothings were similar to the Freemasons; a near-secret 'society' that thwarted political opponents' efforts to learn of its actual leaders, or any designs of the movement.

 

Thus, whenever queried, "supposed" members would respond..."I know nothing," although there was never a political organization bearing that actual moniker.

 

The Know Nothings actually bore the patriotic name, the "American Party." Its efforts concentrated on electing only native-born Americans to office, and the party "platform" was a 25-year residence qualification for citizenship.

 

The American (Know-Nothing) Party would be a liberal's worst nightmare. They were hell-bent to prevent immigrants from being elected to political office, and sought to deny them jobs, arguing that the nation's business owners were far better off  to employ "true" Americans.

 

Millliard Fillmore (a Whig) after serving in the Whitehouse from 1851 to 1853, later "defected" to the American Party in 1856-- their high point--when the party ran him as their candidate for President. While Fillmore finished last, he received almost 1,000,000 votes out of the approximately four million votes cast in the election.

 

But resulting from the party's neutral stance on slavery, the Know-Nothings had declined precipitously by 1860, when members joined the Republican Party, and most importantly, comprised a large, critical voting bloc that elected Abraham Lincoln.

 

And today, we are witnessing a defacto revival of the party - it can be found in our nations' public schools-- a "duh generation" of students who literally know nothing.

 

In a country that supposedly leads the world, America's educational system more resembles that of a third world nation, where students cannot read with comprehension, write with coherency, nor perform simple arithmetic calculations.

 

Perhaps the fault lies with Texas Instruments; after all, it was they who invented the handheld calculator.

 

The push for classroom calculators was the origin of America's "educational malignancy." Once teachers decided to permit them in class, it was the doorway for the demise of not only arithmetic, but phonics, spelling, reading skills, and in the present day- allowing the distraction of cellphones.

 

Remember the dedication of the "old time" teachers? They would drill-baby-drill each individual student, with endless sessions of flash cards, writing exercises, and phonics, teaching dipthongs, consonants, vowels, hominyms, synonyms, etc.-- hard work indeed.

 

But it was satisfying, knowing that these teachers were giving each of their students a future. 

 

But in the early 70's-- like the decline in morals brought on by "the pill"-- America experienced a similar decline in "teaching morals," as classroom instructors betrayed their students' futures, and took the easy way out-- no more flashcards; no more phonics; no more endless writing exercises on "how to make your loops," or even hold your pencil properly.

 

Instead, it was calculators for math answers, "word association" instead of phonics, and forgoing rote memorization in favor of  "discussion," which promoted a "deeper understanding" of subjects.

 

While it would be unfair to paint them all with the same brush, many teachers now are of the mind..."put in your time, collect your paycheck, and hold on for the "promised land"--that fat teacher's union pension.

 

Meanwhile, our pubilc schools continue to turn out generations of unprepared students, who -- after placing their faith in their instructors to teach them what is "true"-- once graduated, they face a future that is at best, uncertain.

 

What if our military trained their recruits like today's teachers? How long would soldiers last on the battlefield if they had not been drilled endlessly with marksmanship, discipline, and self defense?

 

But today's teachers are sending out legions of know-nothing students, who are destined to fail on life's battlefields, that entail fierce competition in order to have the ability to support oneself with gainful employment.

 

To put it bluntly, many of  of America's students-- having been "systematically" dumbed down -- are unprepared, unqualified, and destined for a life of mediocrity; or worse, the unemployment line, and perhaps, incarceration.

 

But things are unlikely to change anytime soon; the leftists comprising the NEA (National Education Assoc.) have their own agenda.

 

They'll continue to teach the "conventional way"...just dumb down the children, and they'll grow up to be know nothings, unable to question what's really going on around them, particularly in the place where it matters most to our nation's future--- being part of an intelligent electorate .

 

Hence, the results of our leftist classrooms have been predictable:

 

Many high school students now "favor" socialism, lacking the critical knowledge of it's threat to what actually enables them to come to school with their designer jeans, and their flashy I-pods and camera-phones-- free market capitalism

 

To the delight of the left, the NEA professes not science, but global warming; they teach not history, but revisionist thinking, as they instill not love of country, but to be vocally critical of our nation's storied past. 

 

American history is the engine of patriotism; but why bother teaching it when self esteem-- what kids are taught instead--will enable them to "progress" into uneducated, hard-core liberals, and continue dividing the U.S. along partisan age lines: those that went to school when you actually received an education, and those now at school who receive indoctrination. 

 

And worse, what's taking place is a chance for our foreign competitors to continue to make up economic "ground," as we decline in our abilities in math, science, research, innovation, invention-creation, and slowly descend into a third-world-like standard of living. 

 

How many foreigners skilled in chemistry, engineering, physics, math, etc., must we import to perform our nation's vital functions-- R&D, teaching in universities, and those scientific pursuits required in the  private sector-- before we reach the point of "no return"?

 

The Roman empire began its rapid decline when citizens refused to fight in the military, and instead, foreign mercenaries were hired. 

 

And is this any different than what's now taking place, as we hire more and more "mercenary" foreign professionals, to maintain our standard of living within our own American empire?

 

Invariably, one of two things will happen: either the entire system experiences total bottom-up reform, or we continue to import more and more foreigners to fill vital professional positions, jeopardizing our status and living standard as the world's leading nation.

 

Otherwise, we will inevitably decline and fall economic victim to the Chinese and India, as generation after generation of dumbed-down, "duh" students-- now out on their own in the real world-- come to realize..."I know nothing."
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The difference between patriotism-- and being patriotic.


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

Liberals invading New Hampshire "stick to the script"


"My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty...of thee I sing".

Remember that uplifting and most patriotic of all songs that you sang in kindergarten? Well apparently in New Hampshire, the words of "My Country" are making a comeback.

New Hampshire-- a state long been known for its rebellious self-sufficiency -- was the first colony to thumb their collective noses at Lord North and George III, and declare independence from Great Britain in 1776.

And 233 years later, a new tyranny, this time from Washington D.C, has roiled New Hampshire, and its native citizens have decided...."THAT"S ENOUGH--take this federalism (and liberalism) and shove it!"

Can you imagine any state in today's economic turmoil putting the federal government on notice, and saying no to stimulus funds, federal high way funds, etc? Well, that is exactly what New Hampshire is doing!

It's called H.R. 6.

Basically, HR 6 stands against the socialist neo-democracy that currently controls Washington that's reaching out "to touch" the entire country and turn it hard left.

And leading by example, the people of New Hampshire have "boldly put forth" the federal government on notice with House Committee Rule 6; a resolution affirming States' rights based on Jeffersonian principles. Currently in committee, the resolution was introduced for all to hear.

HRC 6 states that... "any Act by the Congress of the United States, or Executive Order of the President  which assumes a power not delegated by the Constitution be put into force, then all powers previously delegated by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually".

Powerful words indeed, echoing the days of the 1830's when Vice President John C. Calhoun (from South Carolina) had argued that when a state’s rights were violated by the federal government... "the state had a right to nullify the offending federal law and prevent its enforcement".

But this is not to imply another impending Civil War, but it DOES beg the question-- why does New Hampshire appear to be the only state with enough political moxie to be standing up for its state's rights?

In a word, it's TRADITION, a state where people love their liberty and are actively willing to take a stand.

Blessed by geography and a colder climate, for 200 years New Hampshire was the "Alaska of the East"-- the conservative bastion of independence who fought off the 60's invasion of liberalism that seemed to overwhelm most of the other 49 states.
 
But the real roots of political change in New Hampshire came, surprisingly enough, from the1930s with the attempts by the conservative government of that time to promote travel there (after the first cement roads were built) and auto travel became feasible.

And so it had all worked too well; New Hampshire lost the conservative refuge of its geographic isolation, and the wealthy from Massachusetts and Connecticut had began their influx, looking upon the state as a new playground. But It was their offspring that tended to be left of center, and they were ones that began to settle there and 'make waves'.

The newfound residents sought to enjoy New Hampshire's conservative ways, which spawned a more affordable lifestyle, low taxes, and a friendly business climate. New Hampshire was the only Northeast state that experienced significant population growth since the 90's, and the University of New Hampshire projects that trend will continue into the next 10 years.
 
And the end result? After nearly a century, the Democrats-- having been boosted in the polls by a wave of liberal migration-- gained control of the legislature.

And predictably, its just what we'd expect from the left: the legislature has approved a number of "firsts"--civil (homosexual) unions, a first-ever boaters' speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, and a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. There are even bills in the legislature calling for the once unthinkable--a state income tax--although the odds against are strong for now.

But why the sudden changes to tradition? The majority of the population is decidedly against all of it.

But no matter where, liberals always bear grudges against others who love freedom. They're socialists because they are elitists. They operate in a two-class state system, made up of the elite intelligentsia who govern as "guardians," and the "workers" who "need to be governed".

And so it goes in New Hampshire; the liberals are governing, and the "workers" are rebelling; it's the spirit of '76 all over again, and their current ire is pointing at the fact that New Hampshire is considering passing the ultimate infringement upon individualism--a seat-belt law.

And again the native New Hampshirians are stepping forward and saying: "That's it for you damn liberal do-gooders--we've had ENOUGH!"

A firefighter recently drove 90 minutes in a snowstorm to a statehouse hearing  to tell legislators that New Hampshire is no longer worthy of its motto, "Live Free or Die."  A computer technician, dressed in camouflage hunting gear, came to say that "the state is basically moving toward communism".

New Hampshire is the only state in the nation that doesn't have a law requiring adults to wear seat belts. It has fought efforts to pass one for 30 years, and has been the only "proud resistor" since 1995, when neighboring Maine became the 49th state to "click it or ticket".

And resistance to the seat belt law has been overwhelmingly fierce, with many calling it "a liberal mandate on individual behavior". But liberals in the legislature maintain that "traffic congestion is worse than it used to be"...and..."someone needs to set the ground rules."

Proponents say the seat-belt law would save lives. Anti-seat-belters say there is no evidence that fatalities in the state are higher because of the lack of a belt law.

Of course its the same old songs liberals have been singing for ages -- laws for heath, safety, saving lives, preventing accidents--and for the unspoken reasons: the more powers the cops have to harass citizens, the better. And of course, like all liberal Democrats, it’s another way to get money to waste on spending projects.

Liberals are contradictory. They are all for saving lives, but avid proponents of abortion and the cruel death of the unborn. They are the people who have all the compassion in the world for criminals (especially judges and the criminal justice system) but none when children are harmed or raped. Even when absolute EVIL can be going on, liberals close ranks and hide it--especially where the media is concerned

You have a better chance of finding Elvis alive than you have of ever getting a liberal to listen to both sides of any political issue. Liberals always believe they are right.

Since they are educated and wealthy, liberals believe they're entitled to power. And ironically they seek their power to deny others liberty, holding up fairness as their excuse for legislative tyranny.

In the case of New Hampshire the liberals claim that... "Driving is not a right; its a privilege--and therefore is to be regulated so that harm to others or oneself does not occur". But where in the U.S. Constitution is the state empowered to regulate or license or restrict travel by any means? Nowhere, not even the Interstate Commerce clause!

So the seat belt battle endures. One key factor is that the state is strapped for cash. The law would qualify New Hampshire for $3.7 million in federal money offered to states that pass or update seat-belt ordinances by July 30.

Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show seat-belt usage in New Hampshire is close to 70%, on par with most other states. But many here oppose the law on principle, and cherish the liberty to drive unbuckled as a hallmark of individualism, calling the federal funds dangling over the state as "blackmail money."

But blackmail, subversion, lying, misleading, these are the hallmarks of liberals, who like all good socialists, believe in incrementalism to reach their goals, and doing it "by any means necessary"-- straight out of the words of Karl Marx, the infamous author of the Communist Manifesto.

A gaggle of protesters showed up last week at a meeting of the House Ways and Means Committee, which was debating the fiscal impact of the seat-belt law before sending it back to the full House. "It's a last-ditch effort to stop these people," said  a 28-year-old internet technician from upstate.

But "these people" are liberals, and stopping them "by any means necessary," short of civil war, may prove impossible.


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

Transportation 101...How the democrats railroaded the stimulus

 

Wanna see the key to our future? Look into our past-- the Civil War era, when the historic transcontinental railroad initiative was signed into law.

 

A few weeks before his assassination in April 1865, Abraham Lincoln had told an old Illinois friend, who was returning to SanFrancisco: “I have long desired to see California; the production of her gold mines and her devotion to the Union has been a marvel to me’'. 

 

When Mr. Lincoln first ran for president in 1860, California originally had cast its votes at the Republican convention for rival William Seward. And California proved to be the weakest performance for Mr. Lincoln in any state he won in that election year. 

 

But after the Civil War was under way, Mr. Lincoln innately sensed the the gravest danger of all to the Union-- the loss of a primary source of wealth to finance the war.   


The urge to get the the transcontinental railroad built as rapidly as possible was motivated, in part, to bind California to the North during the war. Mr. Lincoln feared losing the state to secession, and the dreadful possibility of California falling under the Confederate flag of the southern states.

 

And how important was California during Lincoln’s first term? It's believed that the product of her mines and precious metals during the year 1864 alone reached, if not exceeded, one hundred million dollars in in value, which was so vital in the Union's military victory over the South.

Of course we all know  the rest of the story-- the tremendous effect the transcontinental railroad had in shaping our country. But more importantly, it was the premier example of the government  actually providing an economic stimulus that actually did just that-- stimulated the economy by creating a whole new industry that employed people in huge numbers.

 

Work is the basic stimulus of any economy; but a stimulus only fulfills its purpose when actual universal good is the result. Thus, you can’t make or create jobs unless there is actual underlying work needing to be done, and where everyone benefits.

 

So what could the government do to actually create REAL jobs? One of the timeless needs of America is better and faster transportation systems. Our history abounds with examples thereof:

 

The Erie canal was an artificial waterway  constructed across central New York from Albany to Buffalo. It eventually enabled New York City to become the metropolitan and cosmopolitan capital of the entire world in the first part of the 19th century.

 

The Panama canal enabled America to become a two-ocean navy, and helped America to consolidate itself as a world military power in the early 20th century

 

The Interstate Highway System enabled the U.S. to carry its post World War II boom forward into the end of the 20th Century.

 

The salient point here is that  all the above projects were (amazingly enough) built and funded by our government.

 

Of course, that was long before politics had permeated the vehemently partisan Congress of our present day.

 

And with the new 111th Congress, headed by Nancy Pelosi (House) and Harry Reid  (Senate), we’ve now entered into a new virulent type of political gridlock that’s imploded into a de facto partisan political civil war. We're no longer the United States.

 

This de facto politico-civil war in Washington is not the blue vs gray, but a conflict of a red vs blue congress-- resulting in the disunited states of America.

 

And while the economy continues to slide, this bitterly divided congress, reminiscent of the pre-civil war era, is engaging in the same type of finger pointing and bitterly partisan bickering that could precede another historic conflict.

 

Remember how Nero fiddled while Rome burned?

 

But looking back in retrospect; when the congress and the country were united in purpose, herculean projects were the result, such winning World War II.

 

During the 1940s, the New Deal Tennessee Valley Authority project generated more power in the eastern United States than in all of Nazi Germany

 

The atomic bomb Manhattan project shortened  the Pacific theater of the war by at least one year, and left the legacy of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

 

And recall the origins of the internet. It was not because of the great patriotic efforts of Al Gore, but rather the government agency called DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Project Association,  which originally connected the pentagon's mainframe computers over telephone lines,  forming the basic infrastructure of the original internet.

 

But today, such beneficial infrastructure projects are all but impossible, because the only thing our lawmakers agree on is to be disagreeable.

 

Unlike the 1860's, there are no present statesmen to bridge the great political divide. We need someone with the political courage (and moxie) to come forward and pronounce, "The only effective government stimulus is something that would affect the lives of ALL in a beneficial way".

 

Once again the key to the future is looking back to the past-- better, faster transportation… cheaper cleaner power generation...the discovery of new sources of domestic energy. These are timeless needs that would generate the millions of jobs America needs.

 

We could construct 100 new nuclear reactors.

 

We could reopen of offshore deep water energy exploration.

 

And of course, we could spend a trillion dollars rebuilding our roads, sewers, bridges, and mass transit systems. And the crown-jewel idea of infrastructure spending-- we could construct a nationwide corridor of high speed railroad transportation systems:

 

San Francisco, to LA, to San Diego along the west coast. Chicago, to Detroit, to Cleveland, to Pittsburgh, and to Philadelphia in the midwest and east. Dallas to Houston in the southwest. And Richmond, Va. to Washington D.C., to New York, and to Boston on the East coast

 

High speed rail would fulfill the actual purpose of a stimulus ; an entire new industry that could eventually employ tens of millions of people throughout the entire 21st century.

 

But the present politics of today begs the question, “Will the trillion dollar stimulus package actually stimulate?" But if no actual needs are fulfilled (energy, communications, transportation, etc. ) no new actual jobs can be created.

 

But when it comes to actual economic stimuli, the Obama administration appears to only obfuscate and procrastinate.

 

In his internet message of the day, Obama proudly trumpeted on his website..."Last week, the House of Representatives passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will jumpstart our economy and put more than 3 million people back to work".

 

Put 3 million people back to work? How so? How can you put people back to work unless there are actual needs to fulfill?

 

Does spending 27 billion on on extended unemployment compensation fulfill any permanent need? Does spending 30 billion for COBRA (medical benefits for the newly unemployed) fulfill a need? How does that help the entire nation? Does remodeling schools, and making federal buildings energy efficient, fulfill any ACTUAL permanent needs?

 

This democratic American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is merely the same old socialist scheme of wealth redistribution: penalizing work with taxation, and rewarding unemployment with subsidies. This craven  bill is only a clever cover for investing huge, unimaginable sums of taxpayer's money for the sake of a partisan political return.

 

In its current, obscenely pork-barreled form, it's a stimulus package that only rewards unions and other  democratic operatives for their support in Obama's political victory in 2008.

 

It boils down to this: spending a trillion on a package that’s less than 5% infrastructure will do nothing other than expand government permanently, and further consolidate the political power of Barack Obama for his second term; thus ordaining all this as the greatest vote- buying scheme ever devised in the 235 year history of our country!

 

And right now, Abe Lincoln, who literally gave his life to keep the United States united,  is probably turning  over in his grave. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »