About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Pies 'n lies from the Left

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:03:14 PM
 

"SPLAT!"

 

What was that?

 

ANSWER: That's the sound made by the pie that Olympia Snowe threw defiantly into the face of every center/conservative American (approx. 70% of voters) who do NOT want the government to take over any part of U.S. healthcare!

 

Remember that famous sarcastic quote from ol' Hillary, during Slick Willie's 1992 campaign? It went like this: "I suppose I should have stayed home and baked cookies!"

 

Well, to all you foolhardy patriotic people who went to great pains to organize/attend those teaparties & townhalls; you might just as well stayed home and done just that...baked cookies (or better yet a pie), because all your concerted efforts to send a message to Congress have been for NAUGHT...NOTHING...NEIN...NADA...ZERO! 

 

Chocolate chip? Oat meal? Actually, a slice of humble pie is what we are now being served by the most ultra-arrogant, leftist, radical bunch of robbers who ever cast a shadow in the halls of Congress!

 

When will we learn?

 

These radical socialists are NOT AFRAID of anyone who opposes them! Especially you, the average American citizen, who foolishly thinks that by threatening to vote against their unconstitutional marxist takeover of the American economy, and transfer our hard earned wealth to the democratic leeches - that it will somehow stop them in their tracks.

 

IT WILL NOT!

 

Tea parties, townhall meetings and the like are like using bows & arrows against tanks and rocket launchers.

 

If Americans want to see all their freedoms disappear, and their beloved country turned into Marxland, just keep it up: keep listening to talk show hosts; keep reading their books, holding tea partes, keep calling Washington and sending e-mails. And of course, keep HOPING it'll be effective - because it's just what these sordid Congressional leftists want you to keep doing.

 

What we fail to understand: the overriding POWER of INCUMBENCY!

 

Do you think Olympia Snowe fears for her Senate seat? How about Mary Landrieu? Or Blanche Lincoln? Or Evan Baye? Or Alan Grayson? Of course not! They are the incumbents! They have franking privleges! Come election time, they'll send out a blizzard of state-of-the-art mailers, touting all their earmarks (good works) and trashing the Republican party as do-nothings; and unbelievably, it works.

 

Do you think Chris Dodd or Harry Reid is worried? HAH!

 

Come election time 2010, they will have accumulated enough campaign contributions from their leftist supporters, to run a torrent of negative campaign commercials and destroy the reputations of ANYONE who opposes them.

 

Right now, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer's Senate campaign staff are on the phone, digging up "dirt" against all viable Republican candidates who threaten ANY Democratic seat in either the House or Senate.

 

And their preferred method of choice is to obtain (fraudulently) social security numbers, and run an IRS audit, and destroy one's reputation (recall Joe the Plumber) in a dastardly (and illegal) fashion. But this too, works every time.

 

Remember when PT Barnum said ...there's a sucker born every minute? Well the American Public are SUCKERS for Democratic lies and slander; they "suck it up".

 

Negative campaigning ALWAYS succeeds; like it or not..dirt sells!

 

Our National Enquirer mentality is embedded deep into our culture; we love a good scandal - be it true OR false.

 

And if you disagree with this analysis, look how the democrats made instant mincemeat out the cleanest possible candidate on Earth, with a near 90% APPROVAL rating in her home state; the most popular governor in America, with an All-American family to boot - Sarah Palin.

 

REMEMBER: With the mainstream media 95% on the side of the LEFT, conservative America can do no right!

 

Just ask Norm Coleman, who on October 31, 2008 (in a Minnesota Quinnipiac poll) was leading the vile Al Franken by 10 points; yet Coleman ended up losing his Senate seat because the Democrats spent 2 million dollars running a blistering series of negative campaign spots on television for the last week, and closed the gap to a dead heat!

 

And it was ALL lies and innuendo against Mr. Coleman - but the TV stations ran the ads anyway.

 

That's why these amoral criminals in Washington have no fear; the power of the mainstream media is totally in their corner. They took three honest, hardworking Republicans and turned them ALL into Mudd: and the majority of independent voters bought it lock stock 'n barrel (whatever that means).

 

So let's play political toy soldiers and line up our pieces on the battlefield:

 

On the Left we have 60 Senate Democrats - the majority of them leftist radicals- versus 40 hapless Republicans, NONE of which has a clue - or the political nerve- to countermand them.

 

On the Left we have Rahm Emanuel; David Axelrod: Valerie Jarrett; James Carville; plus about 25 other ultra-clever ultra-leftist Democrats, who know every political dirty trick in the book; and are not afraid to attack and use their perfidy against anyone, at anytime, for any reason.

 

And opposing this cadre of thugs we have the lily Michael Steele (with the leadership skills of a hermit crab) plus the "renowned" conservative talk show hosts, who all selfishly REFUSE to run for office, but want you to read all their patriotic books, buy their merchandise, and even charge you to go to their websites and become an "Insider."

 

Ironically, these uppity conservative talkers pretend to be involved, but they accept not any ideas from their followers, and continue to enrich themselves - selling patriotism and hope to middle America - but are little willing to be involved in the fray; yet cleverly portray themselves as "martyrs for the cause."

 

Supposedly they are our "heroes"; and despite their holy exteriors, they too, are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

So what can we, the little guys (the average Americans) do, given such overwhelming odds against stopping all this?

 

1) first of all, we have to contact the RNC and tell them to get rid of Micheal Steele. He is an impotent, incompetent dullard! When Allen Grayson came out with that vicious, horrid, and very effective attack on Republicans, claiming "they want people to die," Steele did nothing...said nothing! He turned the other cheek. The fool!

 

And Grayson's withering attack worked!

 

Whose ever clever idea it was, it quickly took the air out of the death-panel controversy, and made the Republicans seem like they were the villians who would deny the elderly health care! 

 

Leaving this do-nothing Steele incompetent in charge of the Republican party is basically the same thing as running John McCain for President; Steele couldn't be a worse choice to head the party!

 

SOLUTION: Sarah Palin!

 

Now that's WHO should be chairman (woman) of the RNC, with Joe the Plumber as her right hand man. Put "ironman" Steele out to pasture; give him a job at the Post Office, where he belongs.

 

2) The next set of tea parties needs to be directed to where they can do some ACTUAL damage - the main-stream media: i.e. the damn Associated Press; (Association of Socialist Journalists).

 

EXAMPLE: Just when it seemed both government health care and Barack Obama's ratings were about to drop into the cellar, as if by magic the Associated Press comes up with two polls, showing public "resurgence" in both issues.

 

These contrived farces were custom designed to give COVER to moderate democrats - i.e., an excuse to vote FOR Obamacare - and let the Blue Dogs and Senate moderates tell their constituents, "I was following the polls."

 

So here's a simple solution to a seemingly intractable problem...fight fire with fire: Start acting like ACORN!

 

In the next few weeks, hold a series of tea parties in front of the Associated Press HQ - or even in front of your local newspaper's building. DEMAND the TRUTH!  They either print a retraction, or exactly WHO in the world they polled to come up with such a miracle turnaround.

 

Above all, be PERSISTENT.

 

Use the Fox network's "Griff Jenkins" approach: For anyone who walks out of the building, get in their faces (politely). Keep questioning them..."Where did you get your statistics sir? The majority of Americans abhor Obama's radicalism, and want him to back off! Is the AP being paid by the DNC and Whitehouse to fabricate these polls? Do you not have any respect or decency for the First Amendment...?"

 

The idea is to EMBARRASS them! Nullify the number one Obama weapon vs. the American people: the cadre of liars at the Asociated Press.

 

3) Change the modus operandi - but keep it simple

 

Once again, unless conservative Americans want to see what's left of the traditional USA disappear, we have to defend our freedom, and be willing to fight dirty in a clean way, lest we become too much like those we oppose. Henceforth...toilet paper; eggs; and pies.

 

Fraternity pranks- the power of embarrassment!

 

Again we must apply ACORN-like tactics: target the homes of these Congressional "moderates,' who represent conservative districts, yet ultimately, they will vote along with Reid and Pelosi - defying their constituents for their own political ends.

 

THE PLAN: Send busloads of tea-partiers on Congressional "home tours." Upon arrival, the tea partiers disembark and proceed to toilet paper the premises, dropping leaflets saying..."Final warning. No government healthcare. We will see you again in 2010."

 

RESULT? If these fraternity-stunt "attacks" can be coordinated to take place within a certain time frame, (say a week) not only will they make the news, but they will EMBARRASS the phony moderates and Blue Dogs, and at the same time let them KNOW that they truly ARE being watched; and that not even Pelosi and Reid can save them from certain wrath at the polls.

 

Reality bites the Blue Dogs!

 

4) Along the fraternity-stunt theme, we have saved the best for last. Why not a cream pie in the face for the most phony-phony sell-out in America...the dangerous Olympia Snowe, who is quite willing to damage the character of our nation forever, in exchange for Rahm Emanuel's promise that the DNC will not run any viable Democrat against her in 2012.

 

In World War II, enemy collaborators were executed, run out the country, or at the very least, had their heads shaved - the ultimate embarrassment; the mark of a traitor.

 

And in the case of Olympia Snowe, a pie in the face would be her just desserts.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | 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

Obama's energy lunacy: Clean air...bankrupt economy

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:51:23 PM
 

Runnin' scared! That phrase could be applied to Allied troops whenever they came up against the most intimidating weapon of World War II, the dreaded MG-42 Machine gun.

 

The "Maschinen-gwehr 1942," or MG-42 was used by both the German Wermacht (army) and was the standard armament in all the planes of the Luftwaffe (air force). During the war, MG-42 had the fastest rate of fire of any weapon, an astounding1500 rounds per minute!

 

At this rate, the human ear cannot discern the sound of individual bullets being fired. When in use, the MG-42 made a sound like "ripping cloth" or a "screeching belch", hence it's two nicknames--the "burp gun", and "Hitler's Buzzsaw".  
 
The MG 42 is regarded by many experts as the best machine gun ever.

 

American soldiers received special basic training about how to react to its incredibly fearsome sound. They were told to approach the gun from its flanks, and be scattered individually (so as not to present multiple targets), and stay low at all times.

 

The GI's were advised to not be intimidated by the screech of the MG 42, and proceed to take out the emplacement-- and above all-- avoid withering under its fire. 

 

But at a recent Senate hearing, energy secretary Dr. Stephen Chu-- lacking in basic political training-- withered under intense fire from John McCain, and flinched meekly under the senator's angry inquisition concerning the fate of Yucca mountain.

 

Time and time again, the Obama administration has undermined the energy policies of the Bush administration; but of particular ire to Mr. McCain was Chu's ambiguity toward nuclear waste storage, and the administration's announcement that Yucca mountain--the ageed-upon national site in Nevada-- was being scrapped, with13 billion dollars (plus 25 years of on-site preparation) now gone down the drain.

 

Needless to say, Senator McCain was near apoplexy about the abandonment.

 

McCain grew more irascible toward Dr.Chu about the administration’s intention to suspend work at the planned nuclear waste site. “What’s wrong with Yucca Mountain, Dr. Chu?” he demanded repeatedly as Chu tried his best to explain.

 

The slight, soft-spoken Nobel Prize laureate at last weakly replied, "I think we can do a better job,” But Chu (and the Obama administration) have no plan "B",  which only served to inflame McCain even more, as Chu insisted that nuclear waste storage and reprocessing spent fuel rods would require "more research."

 

Predictably, this doublespeak was what we'd expect from the Obama administration's line about conventional energy. Anything to block progress, hamper the economy, and defy rationality on how to solve America's supposed energy crisis-- a crisis of our own making.

 

For now, Obama's pro-environmental approach may be winning plaudits from green groups (the Sierra Club is gushing about the decision to abandon Yucca) but our anti-president is disregarding the economic effects on the U.S. altogether, and is doggedly proceeding with his agenda to set a strict cap on carbon emissions and possibly (unnecessarily) extract an estimated $700 billion to $1.2 trillion out of the economy between 2012 to 2019, should his energy lunacy become law.

 

Although he has the advantage of a democratic Congress, Mr. Obama's lack of Washington experience is showing; he'll soon realize that party affiliation counts a lot less than local politics where energy costs are concerned.

 

Its the regional economy-- stupid!

 

Mr. Obama may be about to run into a political buzzsaw-- an MG-42 type hell-fire from both Democrats & Republicans alike-- all concerned about how the economic effects from his policies will impact their own districts and states.

 

It's about "getting re-elected--stupid!"

 

In his budget unveiled late last month, Mr. Obama "sketched" his environmental green energy platform, but as always, details were in short supply.

 

Meanwhile, back at the Senate hearing, Energy Secretary Dr. Chu (a.k.a. "Doctor No"--no new drilling, no new nuclear plants, no more dirty coal) was doing his level best to be ambivalent about greenhouse emissions, upgrading the power grid, oil and gas drilling, and so-called 'clean coal' technology.

 

Currently, the big oil companies, utility companies and the stock market are all in a state of paralysis as they wonder..."do these people actually KNOW what in the heck they're doing?"

 

A wide spectrum of organizations, such as the Edison Electric Institute (which represents coal-fired power plants) all agree on the need to cut pollution emissions, but can get no answers from either Congressional lawmakers OR the administration about policy or how it's to be done.

 

And answers from Dr. Chu have been best described as being "nebulous in nature", and with "no apparent cohesion".

 

After being nominated as energy secretary, many praised Dr. Chu’s academic credentials, calling him Mr. Science. But Chu's positions so far have merited nothing more than a "smokescreen" . The true energy and climate change policies are being made at the White House by a small team led by "climate czar" Carol Browner, the former Clinton administration's head of the EPA.

 

This begs the question...“Is  Doctor Chu secretary of energy...or secretary of research and development?”

 

Chu came to Washington after serving as director of the Energy Department’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, a civilian research organization with 4,000 employees and a $600 million annual budget.

 

Chu maintains that, "I'm eager to get on with what I see as my main task; finding and financing the scientific breakthroughs that will end the nation’s dependence on carbon-based fuels, and solve the climate change problem".

 

But can Dr.Chu really be serious? Skeptics abound. Is a scientific breakthrough actually possible? Maybe Chu has been watching too many "Star Trek" reruns for his own good. He seems to be oblivious to Sir Isaac Newton's first law..."Energy cannot be created or destroyed".

 

Chu appears to believe he can repeal the very laws of physics, revealing his shocking ignorance of basic science-- a very dangerous ignorance-- one that could delay domestic drilling until 2016, after Obama's expected second term runs out, as WE run out of domestic oil completely, and have to import nearly 100% of our supply.

 

Beam us up Dr Chu.

 

But while waiting for Chu's "breakthrough", OPEC presently drills us for a $700 billion per year annual oil payment, as we now depend on imports for 'only' 70% of our supply.

 

The Obama administration's arguments about energy alternatives rest largely upon wishful thinking. None are currently practical; ALL  would require some degree of lifestyle or economic upheaval.

 

And probing deeper lays bare the scientific facts: there are NO energy alternatives on the horizon pertaining to TRANSPORTATION. Why? Because all previous forms of energy were DISCOVERED-- not invented, including oil, coal, nuclear and electricity. But does our Nobel prize laureate have a clue about this.? Apparently not. Chu seeks the impossible breakthrough, the holy grail of energy!

 

Who among us can even imagine our civilization without gasoline or diesel engines? George & Jane Jetson? Fred Flintstone? Luke Skywalker? Can you picture a 200-car hydrogen-powered freight train? Or a battery-powered concrete truck? Or a fuel cell airliner?  It's almost as absurd to think we could eliminate oil any easier than we could electricity. 

 

Oil has a very complex, unique molecular structure. Science (and Dr.Chu) presently haven't the slightest idea of how to replace it or improve upon it. 

 

Like the internal combustion engine, to displace oil altogether would require the great-great-grandmother of all inventions. Engineers and scientists know this. That's why the oil companies haven't had any breakthroughs. Why spend research money on hope? They know that it's better to go with the flow, and leave the fantasies to Hollywood and Star Trek re-runs. 

 

So we can expect the worst and forget about any forthcoming solutions to the energy crisis. Just remember; less conventional energy means higher costs for Americans-- and Obama will use Chu and his czars as sacrificial lambs to take the heat.

 

With no forthcoming answers from anyone, Obama is cleverly leaving the dirty work up to his EPA Stalinists--Carol Browner and Lisa Jackson-- who have just released their fallacious "endangerment finding" about harmless CO2 , and are about to levy the most costly set of environmental regulations in history-- all under the umbrella of the Clean Air Act.

 

So Obama will continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth; Chu will continue to spout off platitudes about "doing better" and conducting "more research", and Americans will experience 150% increases in electric bills, with more layoffs coming from coal mining companies, heavy industries, and manufacturers -- all under the green banner of saving the environment, protecting the polar bears, rolling back the seas, and thrusting America into a bankrupt, third world socialist country with the cleanest air of any industrialized nation on earth.

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

Hello America... Are you still there?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:17:04 PM

Question: What's the best job in government, where by following the rules, you are virtually guaranteed a lifetime of service, and then retire on a permanent pension with cost-of-living adjustments, and no co-pay health care to boot!

Answer: It's the con job, stupid!  Just be a con-man,  and be rewarded for life.

Nowadays, voters are in a better position than ever to make informed political decisions. They can access the internet, the blogs, and the portals to get election information. Plus there are now many more cable and national news networks like CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX, Bloomberg, etc. all of which carry political programming. And we haven’t even mentioned the traditional news sources, such as the three major TV networks, or the great newspapers like the New York times, Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune.
 
Yes, nowadays voters have access to more information than at any previous time, to make informed choices before they enter the voting booth-- yet they keep getting fooled over & over again. But why?

Today, Americans are not only more ignorant about their government than ever before, THEY DO NOT CARE! Ask the average American a simple question like, "what are the 3 branches of the federal government?" And 60% cannot answer correctly! And that's just for starters. Over 25% of Americans foolishly believe that the UN, along with the president, determines our foreign policy! This is beyond stupid...it is downright idiopathic, which is stupidity to the point where it becomes dangerous.
 
How dangerous is it to be stupid when it comes to one's knowledge of their government? Duh... just look at the way the average American votes nowadays. But first, a little historical perspective on voting stupidly.
 
In the election of 1976, it was Jimmie Carter, a dangerously inexperienced, peanut-farming, 1-term Georgia governor, who was running against Gerald Ford, who'd served well as an interim president after Nixon resigned. Ford was a long time Michigan congressman, and was an all-American football player at his Michigan University alma mater. But during the campaign, Ford was depicted as a clumsy, bumbling, oafish Republican, while Carter was portrayed as a sincere and confidant liberal reformer, who championed human rights and "would always tell the truth".
 
Of course Carter won because he was the adopted candidate of the liberal media. But in the final long term analysis, what was the REAL reason Carter defeated Ford? Was it because of Ford's blunder in the 2nd presidential debate, as history would tell us? Or was it because the country was ready for a president who would be the antithesis of the lying Richard Nixon, and would always be straight forward with the American people? NOPE! The real reason Carter won was because he had better hair than the shiny-pated Gerald Ford.
 
The one MAIN credential nowadays in major elections is: you cannot be bald. When's the last time America voted in a presidential candidate who was bald? DUH... give up? It was Dwight Eisenhower, who won less because of his popularity, and more because of Truman's unpopularity and rating of 35%. And despite the disastrous 1-term presidency of Jimmie Carter, would Ronald Reagan have succeeded him if he'd been bald? And to further the point, Reagan (fortunately) for his age had the thick hair of a 30 yr old.
 
Today, American political hairmania is pervasive in almost any electoral contest. Thinking about running for governor? Well friend, if you ain't got good hair, then try the school board.  How about senator? i.e. Look at the average serving senator's age, and then look at all the "older" men who serve there with great hair! Are either of the senators from your home state bald? Probably not. Or they had real good hair back when they were elected.
 
It's probably incalculable all the damage these great-haired conmen of our government have done to this country, in lieu of the competent bald men who might have served instead, would it not be the fact that they were scalp-challenged with little or no hair. Americans detest a bald political pate; and comb-overs are verboten in national politics. Maybe we should resurrect the Whig party, and highly-qualified honest candidates who lack hair, could now get elected wearing some well-fashioned toupe'.

Even the Founding Fathers had it figured out back then; they all wore powdered wigs, and all the best men were able to serve. And fortunately, they showed what honest, well-intentioned people of government can actually accomplish when they are free of artificial restrictions such as hair, or how they look on television.
 
Yup-- that's the bottom line and basic reason for America's obsession with voting stupidly-- it's how you look on television. In the recent election, what might have been the outcome if John McCain had been a member of the 'wig' party? Interesting question indeed. And to play devil's advocate here, could Obama have won his 'mandate' if he had hair like Micheal Jordan (shiny bald), or had gap-teeth like Micheal Strahan? If you don’t have great hair, or are 'challenged' facially, you cannot be serious about running for president. Just ask Rudy Julianni, Fred Thompson, or geeky Dennis Kucinich.
 
Would (could) homely Abe Lincoln have defeated Obama if he had been born 130 years later and was alive today? NO WAY! Lincoln wouldn't have been even able to make it into congress. Honesty and politics are like oil and water together.

Example: in the warped politics of today, a gaffe is when a candidate unintentionally "lets down his guard" and reveals his (her) true position. Yes, it's a fact...besides one's physical appearance, a political candidate cannot reveal the truth, lest it may damage their chances to win.
 
How did America get to this point? It's the con job stupid, and the 'rewards' of being dishonest. Today Americans are so lacking in ethics in their daily lives, that they seem to be "more connected to" the candidate who can promise them..."I'll create thousands of new jobs....I'll fight for working families everywhere"...etc.
 
Yes; they'll fight for working families everywhere. But the laws the con men sponsor are those of the special interests, who transform working families everywhere into unemployed families everyplace. And these con-men congress-people collect a HUGE payoff in the form of campaign contributions, so they'll have a "warchest" for their re-election, so they can perpetuate their misery.
 
It's a fine way to elect a government isn't it? And the con-men usually serve for life using this "fail safe" formula: Promise everything ...deliver nothing...and blame the failed policies of your political opponent as the cause. (quote) "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it...the truth is the greatest enemy of the State"... Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister).  “A lie told often enough becomes truth”...Vladimir Lenin. Who he? He founded the communist party during the Russian Revolution in 1917.
 
Can anyone deny that this is exactly the current state of politics in America today? You must be a con man or you cannot win. If you make too many gaffes, and let the truth 'slip out', then that's the kiss of death. During the presidential debates, people look for gaffes, rather than the candidate's true position. Policy matters not. The drama of the "gotcha moment" is what the public lives for in a campaign. And the candidate who provides enough "gotchas" is the inevitable victor; as the media will relive the gotcha moments over and over, and the gotcha candidate's ratings soar higher and higher in the polls.

And where does this all lead to? Well, it's become an American tradition: voting like an idiopathic moron; voting against your own best economic and social interests. Keep perpetuating the misery! Keep returning the conmen back to office! Never mind seeking the truth, it matters little. What's important is going with whatever candidate the media selects, that's how you're virtually guaranteed to elect the least worthy, and most specious person to office.

And what's even more idiopathic is to vote the choice of the comedians. Of course! let the comedy channel choose the "best " candidate. Take the advice of Stephen Colbert, and John Stewart Liebowitz, because they're the ones who're looking out for you. Do your part to make our democracy a joke. Let clowns like Bill Maher, and Lettermen and the the other clowns of comedy to make sure we keep re-electing congressional clowns like Barney Frank, and honest Chris Dodd, the odious Chuck Schumer, and the con man of ways and means, Charlie Rangel, because they always get the last laugh on you once they're done taking away what's left of our fast-disappearing, constitutionally guaranteed right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

And take special note of how our Founding Fathers used the word "pursuit" in the Preamble. Why? The longer we continue to re-elect these malevolent, fat-cat incumbents, we'll never catch up to being happy or feeling free from the ever-encroaching tentacles of our rapidly-expanding federal government; and the onerous regulations that destroy the freedom we have left in our lives to keep our money for ourselves, and to speak and act without the fear of political incorrectness, which will soon become another way for these liberals to control our lives, thus making us more miserable than ever.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »