About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

No teacher left behind

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, May 22, 2009 3:57:04 PM
 

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.

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

The new Amerika? Obama's neo-communist revenge.

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, March 02, 2009 5:59:00 PM

Okay boys 'n girls, let's get out our dictionaries and learn an important definition.
 
SEDITION: a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order.
 
And right now, a treasonous, vicious, seditious, covert action is underway to dissolve what's left of self-government-- right underneath our unsuspecting noses!


Anti-president Barack Obama is punching the buttons as fast as he can to fire off his executive order torpedoes, and sinking our democracy beneath an ocean of government induced socialism--the Obama revenge.
 
As far as comrade Obama is concerned, he's voted "nyet" to our democratic tradition and "da" to his peculiar brand of American neo-communism
 
Is it treason? Sedition? Take your pick; it's Obammunism on its most dastardly obsessive mission; changing the face of America to a nation that won't even recognize itself by the time Obama is done serving his presumed second term.
 
And predictably, we should have known:
 
Mr. Obama has been publicly quoted as saying... "that generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties..." a remark that revealed a shocking disregard of the intent of our Founders- to limit central government.
 
Of course this was a only a preview of the other troubling signs demonstrative that Obama was indeed a presidential candidate who despised America. Recall how Obama refused to wear a flagpin; or pictured where he brazenly declined to hold his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance
 
While these may seem trivial, they reveal the true nature within--Obama may be the first truly anti-American president in history; and sought the office to "get even" with America.
 
But "why" you say? Well, as the old saying goes, "the child is father to the man."
 
Obama may not even have been born in America. His father wasn't American.

In his early formative years, he spent time in Indonesia-- a Muslim nation. Then, after moving in with his grandparents in Hawaii, he spent his later formative years under the tutelage of Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed member of the communist party, and certified hatemonger against America.

Obama was mentored by a communist who claimed that "true patriotism" consists of trying to ensure that America loses wars. Thus, Obama, as an adolescent, adopted Davis as the father figure he never had.
 
By the time a young Obama applied to college, he was full blown anti-American in his attitude toward the country where he may have already been planning to "even up the score".
 
Could this be why Obama's entrance records at Occidental college have been barricaded; or maybe eradicated? What student groups did he associate with there? What were his elective subject choices? Where are his admission records? Why does he persist in hiding these?
 
And could this also be why Obama's transcripts at Columbia and Harvard are non-available to the public? Was it because of his Marxist associations...or the anti American theme of his thesis? Did Obama associate with radical student groups as rumors suggest?
 

Columbia and Harvard were schools steeped in leftist radicalism, exposing their students to an ideological liberal bent, and painting America as racist, rife with injustice, and in need of drastic, fundamental change-- a theme Obama took to heart
 
Yes, Obama is the most learned, well educated, well spoken president since John F. Kennedy; but one thing Mr Obama may have never learned in his entire lifetime is patriotism-- love of country-- an appreciation for all America stands for: the opportunity; the freedom: an individual's option to pursue any type of life he or she so desires
 
And Barack Obama’s lack of a parenting American father is coming to the fore in spades during the first months of his anti-presidency.
 
America is more than a country; it's a unique experiment in human history; an idea enthusiastically embraced by immigrants and native-born alike; and it gets passed along from generation to generation
 
But Mr Obama, fatherless during his youth, didn't get the memo; and like his wife, he grew up learning that America is “just downright mean", and must be dealt with in a way he feels is deserving of a people who get bitter, cling to guns and religion, and express antipathy to people who aren’t like them
 
It's Obama's typical liberal elitism-- viewing the average Joe as cattle to be managed--and a desire to defy traditional American government and ideals.
 
Obama is pro-abortion; anti-God; anti guns, and anti-Old Glory. But he’s pro-big government, pro-big spending, and pro-Marxist--punish the achievers and subsidize all the slothful government-dependent leaches. And his his pro-socialist revolution is but a glimpse into Obama’s plans for more Stalin-esque destruction yet to come.
 
Thus we now we face the full wrath of Obama's anti Americanism: trillion dollar deficits...massive tax increases; military cuts...socialized medicine...welfare explosion, and basically, overturning the Constitution's theme of a limited federal government to guard against the one thing the Founders greatly feared --tyranny
 
And tyranny comes in many disguised forms; and Obama is a master of disguise, who's hollow rhetoric belies the true devious objective that lies within: the bleeding of the middle class, and transferring its wealth to the underclass
 
As Lenin wrote, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."
 
Now that Obama is in the Whitehouse, his antipathy for the Constitution, the country, the people, and our traditional way of life has found a wide open avenue of expression
 
Obama has his sights set on an accumulation of power that will continue to go unchallenged as long as the media remains an accomplice-- and they seem quite content to comply
 
And the Obama "push" to end democracy is unrelenting: he's literally peripatetic in his pursuit of a Marxist agenda to destroy, one by one, our Bill of Rights, and establish a new communist order within our country: "Da, Comrade.. .welcome to UNITED STATES of AMERIKA"
 
But predictably, our treasonous media has chosen to masquerade this travesty, going so far as likenening Obama to Abe Lincoln. Yes of course!  And Dick Cheney was the second coming of Thomas Jefferson
 
But the true presidential comparison of Obama will never be spoken by the media. His election is more aptly compared to another anti American president-- James Earl Carter
 
Yes; the Democratic liberal, Jimmy Carter — Mr. Human Rights--with his body of work that decimated the US economy, emasculated our once highly-effective CIA, and embarrassed the U.S. time and time again with his blundering pro-Islamic foreign policy

Almost single-handedly, Carter destabilized the Middle East by working to allow the overthrow of the pro-American Shah of Iran, in order to create a power vacuum that permitted radical Islamists to take over that country.
 
Carter was also instrumental in causing radical Islam to seize the U.S. Embassy and its staff in Iran, which resulted in the 14-month Hostage Crisis. This Carter-created hostage disaster ended only after Republican Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States—replacing the reckless, naively-dangerous Carter.
 
Jimmy Carter, with all of his actions taken during his single-term presidency — and beyond — could also be considered as our first truly anti-American president.

And if so, then Barack Obama is well on the way to proving to be our second.

 

Obama's presidential "thesis" seems to be a take-off from Carter-- a theme of punishment-- getting even with America for all her past sins of racism, imperialism, and taking advantage of the poor; a radical leftist agenda that would have sent shivers up the spine of Thomas Jefferson. 
 
And it should do the same to all thinking Americans, who know that without the intent of our Constitution-- to protect our rights and liberties-- we would be at the mercy of a powerful and unrestrained federal government, ruled not by law, but by power-hungry men like Barack Obama.
 
So a big dose of patriotic reality is urgently needed; we need to start getting loud, REALLY LOUD, to warn of the creeping cancer of Obammunism.
 
Only a few years ago, people thought that this ultra-liberal socialist push was just a fear of the conservative right. Now it is not only on our doorstep, it has seated itself at our dining table.
 
Obama may or not be a Christian, but he never seems to be able to forgive America for her so-called past sins, and he’s out to condemn a death sentence upon the country we all know and love as patriotic Americans, who will fight Obama to the end.

 

www.keenobserver.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

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, February 02, 2009 8:03:06 PM
 

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 »