The Conservative Hawk

03 Jul

The Obama Left Wing Liberal Extremist Brand of Patriotism

Being that it is the day before Independence Day, I thought I would talk about patriotism.

Patriotism is and can be defined in only this way. It is the love of one’s country and a willingness to make sacrifices for it. It is a positive and supportive attitude to a ‘fatherland’ expressed by an individual or a group. It is not defined as community service or loyalty to the state, but loyalty to the idea of freedom for it’s people as individuals. It is never expecting something from the state. It’s that plain and simple.

I have heard left wing liberals define it as, and I quote directly, “disagreeing with your government when you believe they are wrong.” These same friends of mine, who are left wing liberals, give Barack Obama kudos for being “the most patriotic person in the picture below” because he expressed himself and what he believes.

What they are describing is a belief in the individual rights of people to not wear an American Flag pin or placing your hand over your heart during the National Anthem. They are confusing the exercise of rights with Patriotism.

You cannot simply exercise your rights and call it Patriotism. Rights, by the way that were created by patriots and defended by patriots. What you see on display from Barack Obama is the furthest thing from patriotism. It is pure disdain for the idea of patriotism. Don’t misread what I am saying. I am fine with his personal freedom to act this way but I am NOT fine with calling it patriotism.

All that said, you can see how the left wing liberal extremists are perverting what patriotism is and what it means to be a patriot. You can see where this nation is going and where we will end up if we allow the left wing liberal extremists to take control of it.

If you enjoy this site, please show your appreciation by signing up for automatic updates. You will only receive email when I make a post. If I don’t make a post that day, you don’t get an email.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

4 Responses to “The Obama Left Wing Liberal Extremist Brand of Patriotism”

  1. 1
    Price Says:

    Patriotism is the devotion to one’s country and fellow citizens. It is the shared vision and promotion of the principles that fundamentally unite the community. In the United States, those principles are fundamentally expressed as positive freedoms; that is, freedoms TO (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Also in the U.S., at its founding and influenced by John Locke, it is the government’s duty be a function of the will of the people. In other words, we have the right to protest or renounce our government if we view it as illegitimate. A government is “illegitimate” when it no longer serves the people, the principles of the people, and the will of the people. Patriotism is not “never expecting something from the state,” rather, it is having extreme expectations of the government: to function on the will of the people and reflect the principles that unite our community.

  2. 2
    Conservative Hawk Says:


    Very eloquently stated. However, would you agree that the Constitution is there to protect everyone’s rights and not just those of the “majority”?

    Would you also agree that we cannot change the definition of patriotism to fit our needs?

    You and I have similar but different views of patriotism. I would agree that it is the devotion to one’s country and fellow citizens. It is how we get there that it appears we disagree. I believe in helping my fellow citizens and defending my country. But I believe in helping my fellow citizens voluntarily. I believe in using my own money to help. Correct me if I am wrong (and if I am, I apologize) but it seems you are advocating that the government force us to help our fellow citizens through state and federal programs.

    First, because government cannot serve the “people” if it does so by trampling the rights of even the smallest segment of society. Government cannot be in the business of providing for the every whim of its people. When it does that, it becomes destructive of the rights of one group or another. Government cannot function on the will of the “people” unless you just count the majority as the “people”.

    When I say “never expecting anything from the state” I am not referring to the expectation of good government or the provision of the protection of all citizens. I am referring to not expecting the government to take care of your needs. Patriotism cannot be achieved by taking a handout from the government which was paid for by someone else. Paid for with money that was forcibly taken from another person.

  3. 3
    Cautious1 Says:


    Dear Christian Friends,

    By the stroke of the pen on an Executive Order, President Obama has reversed the ban on fetal stem cell research. I don’t believe we should lose hope and conclude it’s a foregone conclusion that researchers will continue to abort human babies for the purpose of extracting their embryonic cells for implant into adult brains whose owners suffer from Altzeimer’s or some other disease. There are ways such “research” can be stopped even if Congress fails to act against the President’s misjudgment.

    When researchers talk about “stem cell treatment,” we must understand what they are doing, how they intend to do it and what their expected results are.

    When asked to explain how the process would work, proponents of stem cell treatment are at a loss. Reasons are, first, they don’t know; second, there is nothing to know, since it would not work as intended. The logic upon which the research is based is flawed and expected conclusions false. In short, it amounts to infanticide, and body-part “can-nibalism” – like the Air Force that takes parts from one airplane on the ground to install them on other planes still flying.

    The activity of stem cell treatment proponents is not bio-medical science but is anchored in greed and godless lawlessness. It is imbued with selfishness and heartless callousness towards unborn babies who will be murdered in order that a few human “scavengers” can survive. To hear them speak on television programs or to read their apparent pleas to let the “research” continue amounts to validating the cries of hyenas on a rampage for prey.

    First of all, these embryonic stem cells belong to unique, already procreated, formed-in-the-womb human beings whose embryonic development to maturity has been stopped, interrupted and discontinued due to external intrusion by laboratory technicians. These so-called embryonic stem cells are already predisposed, pre-designed, pre-purposed to differentiate and specialize into body organs and parts that belong to a specific human being. Just because the baby’s development in the womb has been stopped at a specific time, i.e., embryonic or fetal stage, just because there is dislocation from purposed locus of maturity, do not entail a change in genetic design or imprinting. The cells, from the standpoint of biological development and maturity are already pre-destined to differentiate and specialize into that specific human being whom the sperm and the egg have had already formed into existence, regardless of age. Dislocation from that specific human being and transplantation into an Altzeimer’s patient’s brain do not change the genetic predestination and individuation of those cells.

    Thus, were those cells allowed to mature, they would be organs and body parts belonging to the specific baby formed by the sperm and the egg, before the baby was murdered prematurely, whether at the embryonic age (3 days old in the womb), or fetal development age (2 months old in the womb). This genetic specificity and unique individuation will not change just because the cells are dislocated and transplanted in another body; and no biological or chemical process will take place in the patient’s brain that will effect a change in his own neurons. They might as well take the baby’s toes and do the same with them – transplanting one body part from one human being into another. This demonstrates how flawed their logic is and how false their conclusions are from these unscientific assumptions. The only reason these cells are called “stem cells” is because at that age (not “stage”), i.e., the embryonic, they are not yet formed or differentiated into body parts, such as the eyes, the mouth, the feet, or specialized into organs, such as the heart, the liver etc… They pretend to forget that the sperm and the egg from which this unique human being is being procreated form only one genotype, one human being with a specific genome and no other. And these cells are not “stem cells” from the standpoint of biology but only from the perspective of human beings who have already committed murder and must justify their acts by identifying “cells” with their victim’s age in the womb, i.e., embryo – stem cell. But at the age of un-arrested and uninterrupted development, e.g., 5 months old in the womb, the baby is a “fetus.” Why? The baby was not murdered; cells too young to form body parts and organs, now, are maturing through the development process into their specific genetic predestination and bio-organic individuation. Consequently, so-called “stem cell treatment” is selfish self-deception and godless self-delusion. These babies are dying needlessly and murder is being rewarded with media hoopla and taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

    Please do not lose courage, nor despair. It is not too late to stop them. We need to spread the truth with scientists who will listen to biologically sound scientific knowledge, citizens and public officials who will then take constructive action before this gruesome undertaking is launched on this land against the most defenseless victims amongst us, unborn babies.

    Thank you. God bless you Christ Jesus, our Lord.

    Leo Emmanuel Lochard, BA, MA, Certified Teacher, State of Illinois , USA

  4. 4
    Cautious1 Says:


    Dear Fellow Americans,

    Global warming is a concept predicated upon certain computer-programmed atmospheric parameters that tend to diminish the complexity of Earth eco-system inner-workings. “Global warming” is not a concept that originated from human analytical scientific thinking but is an interpretation of certain data from a computer program. And it is not right that a whole propaganda-agenda of fear be generated in every nation which, as it breeds extremism, would endanger continuum economic prosperity, even here, at home. For, regulatory measures being sought from national governments would impinge upon innovations by free enterprise, consumer product and reality-based production methods by private industry. We can be sensitive to a clean environment vision without holding to the “global warming bandwagon.” The problem is particulate emissions and not the gases themselves, for particulate emissions (e.g., quantities in PPB’s or “parts per billion) return to earth as “acid rain,” for example; and, in addition, they contribute to cancer, lung disease and respiratory problems. There is no scientific evidence for the computer-program generated “problem;” still, corporate industries have to be socially responsible and must abide by the requirements of Clean Air Acts regarding atmospheric smokestack emissions, hazardous waste control, and comprehensive potable water protection.

    I have read a scientific research report by OISM – OREGON INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE – PETITION PROJECT at This is the most scientific reading I have had on this subject which elucidated how one must approach all discussions of “global warming,” – very cautiously, very prudently. I did not even know how this debate began and where the term came from. And OREGON INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE scientists explain, “Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy.” It’s no less than “weather forecasting” with the same machines from which our nightly weather news come, e.g., “50% chance of showers.” The climate always changes from season to season. Let me emphasize this: The human body is the climax of all the complex laws of physics, chemistry and biology and is the most efficient organic system in the Universe. And human beings exhale Carbon Dioxide as a natural by-product of biological metabolism, namely respiration. How can Carbon Dioxide then present a danger to us or the atmosphere?

    In the same vein, all efficiently burnt carbon-based fossil fuels, like petroleum and coal, result in emissions of Carbon Dioxide and Water. So why is there a cry regarding “Carbon Dioxide emissions?” Is it because industrial smokestack emissions are not absorbed by the atmosphere, and do not degrade into basic chemical elements? Do they just accumulate and hover above the breathable atmosphere? Questions then are, does Earth temperature really increase because of that? What quantity or volume does it take in order for this to occur? Unfortunately, the on-going debate is mainly ideological with pressure groups taking the lead rather than earth scientists explaining the details of scientific principles involved. But the Great Flood of the times of Noah recorded in the Holy Bible, an account also reported almost in every culture on the Earth, did occur. Human recorded history is replete with natural catastrophes, from floods, to tornadoes, to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Vesuvius erupted in Italy and buried a whole city in ashes. And there had been no industrial revolution then, thus, no smokestack gas emissions. Freezing and thawing are routine geo-physical events due to solar activity and seasonal variations.

    The research project at OISM did conclude that changes in Earth temperature are due to Solar activity and not to human hydrocarbon use, which only dates back to the 1880′s – about 128 years of fossil fuel exploitation (1880-2009). The USA is older than that. We began in 1776! And emissions come from major industrially developed nations, a minimum number, comprising The United States of America, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, and more recently, India and China, rather than from all nations of the Earth. Most of the “global warming trumpeters” abide by the Theory of Evolution and believe the Universe is billions of years old; then how could just 128 years of variegated human industrial activity provoke such catastrophic temperature consequences? Is this scientifically possible? Goes “out of the window” the concept of so-called “adaptation!” There is no evidence it is. However, “acid rain” is real, objectively concrete and provable with evidence of tree damage, for example, because the particulates traveling in smokestack gas emissions are trapped by cloud formations that then liquefy and fall down as “acid rain water.”

    Scientists must enter the dialogue to prove whether the problem of “global warming” is real. These problems must be scientifically understood if a scientific solution is being sought. Cannot emission-trapped particulates be filtered out before emission release into the atmosphere? Government administrators deserve to know the root-source and cause of national debates so that they are not deceived into investing resources, manpower, hard-earned taxpayers’ money, in the pursuit of “solutions” that are originally based on flawed hypothesis and false assumptions – from an electronic computing machine. After reading the material published by OREGON INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE on its website, analyzing and evaluating it, I concluded that all this “hoopla” about “global warming” is due to a weather-forecasting computer program and not to reality-connected, true-to-Earth sciences and solar system scientifically proven facts. The electronic machine cannot think, it cannot anticipate or weigh, prioritize or factor pertinent variables, but only performs as programmed; it is rather “number-friendly” but is not an analytical thinker.

    Research must be conducted to find out what happens to industrial by-products such as dioxin, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules – do they degrade into atmospheric composition gases? Do they remain within the different atmospheric layers until absorbed, yet without decaying back to atomic elements? Is non-absorption why they continue to hover below cloud-cover, as particulates there-in return to the soil as “acid rain?” For example, logging and deforestation must be accompanied by a program of tree replanting. Plants and trees are renewable resources – farmers know. Corporate industries are accountable and responsible for atmospheric emissions also in accordance with international laws, treaties, and Clean Air Acts. But scientists ought to be doing the thinking, rather than let the interpretation of an electronic climate program generate fear-of-living on the Earth, as is this demagogy being perpetrated by the “global warming” progagandists. The greater question is, given that industrial producers are using petroleum-based processes – carbon-based fuels – can emission compositions be different from what they are now? And if not, what can be done to clean them up of particulates before atmospheric release? And are CO2 emissions dangerous by nature or is it due to the accumulation, non-absorption and non-degradability thereof?

    Thank you for allowing me to share these concerns with you. God abundantly bless you in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.


    Leo Emmanuel Lochard, BA, MA, Certified Teacher, State of Illinois, USA

Leave a Reply

© 2014 The Conservative Hawk | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Global Positioning System Gazettewordpress logo

Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: Couldn't resolve host name in /home/conser6/public_html/wp-content/themes/greenline-10/functions.php(3) : runtime-created function on line 286

Warning: file_get_contents( [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: operation failed in /home/conser6/public_html/wp-content/themes/greenline-10/functions.php(3) : runtime-created function on line 286

Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: Couldn't resolve host name in /home/conser6/public_html/wp-content/themes/greenline-10/functions.php(3) : runtime-created function on line 286

Warning: file_get_contents( [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: operation failed in /home/conser6/public_html/wp-content/themes/greenline-10/functions.php(3) : runtime-created function on line 286