About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

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

Got Global Warming? It's Dr. Chu to the rescue!


 

Note to Mr. Obama: Your buddy, Tim Geithner, is more than an embarrassment; he's a scofflaw. His offense is not civil, but criminal in nature. It's that "intent" thing--  like deliberately trying to avoid paying self employment taxes for FOUR years.

Obama claimed it was, "Just a memory lapse...a "common' mistake...and "that shouldn’t bar the Senate from confirming him".

But in saying this-- is Obama embarrassing himself? Didn't he maintain during his campaign that his administration would be the most 'transparent" in history?

And treasury Secretary nominee-designate Geithner has also been deemed, by an-eager to-confirm-Congress, also as being no embarrassment. "Just a few hiccups," said majority Senate leader Harry Reid. So despite his obvious sin, looks like ol' Timothy is in for treasury czar.


OK now, who's next for confirmation? Apparently it's for the Dept of Energy... "Calling the renowned Dr Stephen Chu! You're wanted by president Obama to appear in front of the senate energy committee for confirmation"!

 
 
But the "renowned" scientist Chu, may himself be an embarrassment--an embarrassment to the intelligence of energy scientists and physicists around the world. Dr. Chu last September stated that, "somehow we have to figure out how to get the price  of gasoline in the US  to the level of that in Europe". In April of 2007,  Dr. Chu, at a presentation at the University of California at Berkeley, stated that, "Coal is my worst nightmare".

Presently, coal represents almost 66% of our electricity production, and its use as a cheaper alternative than natural gas is re-surging. But evidently, the dreaded thoughts of coal have caused the renowned  Dr. Chu to experience even more unsettling bad dreams ...(quote) "The abundance of coal in the U.S. means we won't run out of energy, but it represents enough carbon in the ground to really cook us". Hows that sound-- OUR energy secretary... our proposed energy czar, can't sleep because of his coal nightmares.

But rest easy fellow Americans; Dr. Chu has some interesting cures for his global warming  paranoia; and in the future, every time we go to raise our thermostats, or fill up at the pump, it's us who'll be having the nightmares! This man intends to use science in place of practicality and common sense. He seeks not what's best for America, but what he deems will be best for the environment-- reducing consumption by raising energy prices.

Dr. Chu is about as diehard a global warmonger as anyone you can think of. And our green obsessed new president is right alongside with him about saving the planet; turning back the oceans; and stopping the biblical like apocalypse of mankind burning up the planet with fossil fuels.

Yes president Obama...you've made a great choice for our new energy secretary; right at a time when Dr. Chu's plan to reduce consumption of oil and electricity come when both energy prices and and consumption are falling, because of MARKET FORCES. And Dr. chu, exprimenting away in his shelter from the real world at his Livermore lab, probably thinks "Market Forces" is some hot new title on X-box.

Dr Chu is determined about his mission to turn plants into petroleum substitutes, and actually hopes to find (or engineer) better biofuel plants. Chu wants to develop processes for breaking down cellulose and transforming it into fuel, at costs "competitive" with gasoline. This would indeed be a huge breakthrough, replacing gasoline with cellulosic ethanol.

Just imagine how afraid OPEC must be right now....
 
 
scene: OPEC HEADQUARTERS

oil sheik #1; Hmmm, what are we going to do about this guy, Dr Chu? 

oil sheik# 2 : we've got to stop this madman.

oil sheik#3: this cellulose for fuel thing looks like it's the end of  the line for us.  Now we'll all have to get real jobs ...I hear that new resort complex over in Bahrain might be hiring.


If you want to get a level of the enthusiasm (fanaticism ) Dr. Chu has toward  "saving the earth from fossil fuels", get a gasoline-vapored whiff of this recent AP quote: "DOE (dept. of energy)  will be run by Dr. Stephen Chu of U.C. Berkeley, who after winning a Nobel Prize for capturing atoms with a laser at Stanford, then took over the Laurence Berkeley Lab and gutted its research staff, transforming it from a  power research unit, to one working on "alternative energy" (i.e., wind and sun only).

 

But predictably, ever since the fanatical Dr. Chu has been in charge, Lawrwence Berkely Research Lab (LBRL) has accomplished exactly nothing in energy research- except a barrage of peer-reviewed papers on (what else?) Global Warming. (All of which boil down to Chicken Little screaming "The Sky Is Falling!")

Can you picture cellulose replacing oil? Are we about to enter the age of..."fill-er-up there Shorty, with premium cellulose''.

 
 
And what else does the great Dr. Chu, besides cellulose, have in mind?  What other scientific treasured energy gems does he have waiting to reveal to us? Are we totally hell-bent on spiraling back to the stone age? While we're saving the earth, lets just get it over with now--end all land-based and ocean based energy exploration. It simply leaves too great of a "carbon" footprint...bring on the biomass!
 
Consider Dr. Chu's profoundly scientific approach to coal (his worst nightmare). Sixty-some percent of America’s power comes from coal, and Chu’s earlier comments have made the coal industry and the mining unions extremely nervous. But Chu has assured the senators in the energy committee that science and technology will allow coal "to keep the lights on".
 
 
However, when it comes to making federal investments in coal sequestration (i.e. clean coal), Chu acknowledged that research into new sources of energy will take a higher priority than cleaning up coal CO2 emissions by "sequestering" them into the ground. Oh those poor groundhogs! Will  PETA  be cool with this?

 

Chu’s two hour confirmation hearing touched on all the energy issues: wind and solar power, on shore and off shore oil and gas drilling. Chu also spoke on renewable resources, which  he deemed to be "carbon neutral" and can replace coal eventually.  Dr. Chu supports federal loan guarantees to restart the nation’s nuclear power industry, but is quick to say that, " Science must find a solution to store nuclear waste".


Translation; since nuclear waste has a "hot" half-life of about 99 hundred-thousand years (i.e. forever) Chu and his ilk will never let another nuclear plant go on line during the next 8 years; and you can take that to the bank...er, waste dump.

Despite all the conflicting evidence (and extremely cold recent weather) Dr. Chu has been unambiguous in stating that carbon dioxide emitted by cars, power plants and industry is a direct cause of global warming; and that urgent action to slash emissions is needed to avoid upheaval of the planet’s climate. Yes, it's Dr. Chu to the rescue.

Dr. Chu's stated mission for the last four years as dirctor at LVRL has been to use so-called synthetic biology to convert plant cellulose into fuel; these plants would be  a biomass composed mostly of switch grass and woodchips. But the growing of plants for fuel competes with the growing of food.

And since cellulose plants (like switch grass) have less energy content than planting corn for ethanol, they require eight times as many acres to produce equivalent amounts of energy. One estimate says replacing corn ethanol with cellulose fuel would require planting enough switch grass to cover the state of Ohio.

There's a basic truth that cannot be altered - each drop of crude oil has an energy content that far surpasses the same amount of corn, switch grass or anything else. A gallon of ethanol can't take you as far as a gallon of gasoline because there's less power in it.

And don't forget--the burning of biofuels still emits carbon dioxide, even if it is the same carbon dioxide that the plants had sucked out of the air. Subsidizing ethanol while suppressing domestic drilling, and halting construction of refineries and nuclear power plants, is a big reason why energy costs keep climbing.

To Dr. Chu's credit, there area few pluses. Cellulose energy might indirectly bring down food prices in the future. Cellulosic ethanol, while not yet ready for market, has more favorable energy ratios than corn, and presents more room for productivity gains, making it appealing to investors, farmers and refiners.

But large-scale development of cellulosic ethanol is plagued by environmental problems. Turning cellulose into fuel would require a huge expenditure of increasingly scarce water resources; and the mass production of cellulosic ethanol would likely impact soil quality.

Cellulosic energy DOES represent a better alternative than corn ethanol. But Dr Chu-to our peril--ignores one scientific fact:--gasoline is a better fuel than ethanol by many measures, especially because a gallon of gas has about 20% more energy in it than you get with the absurdly low increase in energy yield from either corn or cellulosic ethanol.

 The bottomline? Political correctness makes for a lousy energy strategy. Are you listening out there Dr Chu? We know your intentions are good, but you  must understand; America simply does not have even a fraction of the acreage necessary to grow enough of anything that would replace petroleum.

So those OPEC sheiks can rest easy, and put away the want ads for now.

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