Posted on 05/27/2010 9:45:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It is no secret that many of us who reject Obama's neo-communist agenda have turned to the Founding Fathers for guidance; when you think your country's founding principles are under attack, it's natural to re-acquaint yourself with the writings of the extraordinary group of men who wrote our founding documents.
When we examine this genius cluster, George Washington is perhaps the best loved. Last week Glenn Beck recommended the four-year old, 1208-page tome, George Washington's Sacred Fire, which discusses pop culture fave topics like the religious beliefs of our first President. The book shot to number one on Amazon's bestseller list. It has recently been bumped to #2 by an R-rated Swedish detective series.
It was therefore understandable that a Boston Globe editorial felt the need to compare Washington and Jefferson unfavorably to...Bill Clinton.
George Washington's parents no doubt took pride in his childhood honesty, but therein may lie the reason he was among the least intellectual of the Founding Fathers. A Canadian study last week declared that children who lie are actually showing their mental acuity and creativity. "Parents should not be alarmed if their child tells a fib,'' Kang Lee, director of the Institute of Child Study at the University of Toronto, told the Telegraph of London. In fact, children who are making things up at age 2 have fast-developing brains, which portend greater intellectual achievements. Thomas Jefferson, whose genius sometimes led him down a twisty path around the truth, may have been an example. So might his mentally agile successor, William Jefferson Clinton. As for Washington - perhaps there's a new explanation for why he confessed, in the great Parson Weems legend, to chopping down the cherry tree: Maybe young George just couldn't come up with a good enough cover story.
George Washington was certainly capable of telling a lie and coming up with imaginative stories to further his cause. He was one the most effective spymasters in our history.
I bet the author’s a really smart guy. Which means you can’t believe a damn thing he says.
Another new low.
Washington is the model of what a stong man should be. Same can’t be said for Clinton or Obama.
But at least they are mentally agile.
These "experts" must not be married. (The Clintons' excluded. I think they had an open marriage. Hillery knew what to expect and she was was fine with it all if she didn't get dragged down.)
Second, young George would have been sent to England for his education as his two older half-brothers had been, had his father not died when the lad was 10 years old. He then stayed at the Ferry Farm (across the Rapahannock from Fredericksburg, VA) with his mother who then ran the late Augustine's business (mines, a foundry, but mainly farms). However, he was taught by a traveling Jesuit priest in F'burg and learnt his lessons well.
At the time, much land had to be surveyed and thus surveyors were an important profession (think of it as equal to a software engineer of today). Washington passed the certification at the age of 16, and was examined at the College of William and Mary.
Washington was not a great orator, as it has been said he was very self-conscious about the sorry state of his teeth. He was an excellent writer, as can be seen through the volumes of his papers that today exist.
Aside from being a surveyor, he was a skilled draftsman and drew up the first plan for Alexandria, VA. He was extremely creative and strategic in fighting the battles of the RevWar, and ran a brilliant and large spy ring throught the war.
And as a gentleman farmer (and he got down in the dirt, too) he FAR surpassed Jefferson; Washington was one of the very first to rotate crops and decrease his reliance on tobacco. He was a bright businessman and built a still and fished the rivers for profit.
Finally, do the geniuses in Boston believe that their homeboy bright star John Adams would have picked anyone slow-witted and/or ignorant to head up the Continental Army? These editorialists are disgusting leftist revisionists and beyond contempt.
Your OBdt. Svt.
P_____y
Maybe next they will call Washington a fool for not declaring himself King when other people wanted him to become one after the revolutionary war.
Very well said.
So, alcoholics and druggies (who are notoriously chronic liars either to get their next jolt, or to cover up their cheating, stealing, and previous lies in order to to get their previous jolts) must be super-geniuses.
Same go for pedophiles?
And illegal Aliens, too?
Only dim-bulbs follow rules, obey laws, and are honest.
Got it!
BoGlo is owned lock-stock-and-barrel by New York Times Company.
‘nuff said.
lying=good
kill unborn babies=good
stealing=good
envy=good
Just the new universally accepted code of ethics.
The broader question from the point of view of historiography is, why speculate when you can actually find out? The answer, I'm afraid, is that speculation can support The Narrative where the evidence does not. That isn't pretty.
Well, this part is more or less true. TJ was much inferior to Washington in character. But then most people then and now are.
Pure intelligence and leadership are two entirely different things.
We have developed a cult of intelligence in the US. It has become a strange form of royalty.” We are intelligent, so we should be able to run the country in a near-dictatorship.”
When you listen to them talk about it, it sounds like, “The people who oppose us are ignorant and don’t even know that what we are doing is in their best interest.”
Washington, on the other hand, represents the best American traditions of leadership. He lead the army to victory, then went home. He was president, then refused to be made king or lifetime leader. Even though Washington clearly knew that there were areas where the nation could be improved, he willingly accepted the idea that he was not in king, just a good steward of his nation’s future.
I guess in liberal lalla land truth if a sign of stupidity? What silly pathetic beings they all are.
It’s no wonder they disapprove of Scouting:
A Scout is:
* Trustworthy,
* Loyal,
* Helpful,
* Friendly,
* Courteous,
* Kind,
* Obedient,
* Cheerful,
* Thrifty,
* Brave,
* Clean,
* and Reverent.
You might as well just say it straight out: By liberal standards, a Scout is stupid. All my kids meet this “stupid” standard, and I’m proud of having raised such dumb children.
Over the years I've found that most "experts" usually aren't, and those that purport to be "experts", usually are like children seeking attention.
Reminds me of an interview Tom Brokaw done with an 'expert' on a certain disease. Brokaw said "Very little is known about this disease but we have Dr. _____ , an expert on this illness to tell us about it."
If very little is known then how can anyone be an 'expert'?
Excellent question. If the MSM puts someone up as an 'expert', that means they probably know less than the average guy on the street, and if it's for some lib cause, they won't let facts stand in their way.
Right. This guy reminds me of my BIL. He says spenders are more capable with money than savers are, because they know many things to do with money, whereas savers only know how to do one thing with money-save it.
Pearls of wisdom from the guy who’s been mooching off his family and friends for the last 35 years and has never managed to hold a job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.