I have an adult son on Medicaid (SSI), and I just received a letter that they will be changing his Medicaid. I got one earlier, but figured it didn't really apply to me, as I don't use the medical services. He is covered on our insurance (military Tricare Prime), and his pediatrician doesn't accept Medicaid...but he does Tricare Prime, which is odd, but that's another article.
This sort of ties in with another article I did, about free cell phones for those on any government program. We had gotten a flyer attached to our door (I guess they just hit everyone) about this very thing. If you were on a government program (I believe it even included unemployment), you could qualify for a free cell phone (texting was extra), with up to 200 free minutes a month.
This new letter basically told me that I had no choice but to go with the change. I'm going to get a service coordinator...I wonder how much that costs the government? They are going to add service coordinators to everyone on a government program? Either they are going to have to add a bunch more employees to an already bloated government, or they will be stretched so thin as to be of no use. I'm one of the lucky ones and don't ever need to call Social Security for a problem. I did in the beginning, and it took them 3 months to get my name right (I've been married for 21 years and they were using my maiden name) and my address. I can hardly wait to see how they are when they are "coordinating" every thing. Yea. Government "efficiency" at it's best.
In a nut shell, this is what my letter said. First, I don't believe they gave me a choice. Second, it states if you're in a nursing home, you can't change. What? That would be doubling the services? Since when has that stopped the government? There's a veiled threat at the end. If they don't hear from me by January 14, 2011, I'll continue with what I have, but I won't have a primary care giver, health plan, or a service coordinator.
So, I have 2 choices: Molina Healthcare of Texas, or Superior Health Plan Plus. Molina offers up to 18 one-way trips to doctor visits after all Medicare ride benefits are used (one-way? does that mean 9 actual visits, or find a way home yourself?); Up to $500 a year for exams, x-rays, fillings, tooth pulling, and 2 cleanings for age 21 and over. Other services are 25% off...does that mean they aren't covered anymore? I'll also get a $20 gift card for over-the-counter meds every 3 months (on request); PRE-PROGRAMMED CELL PHONE (what is pre-programmed?); Weight watchers membership (What?) and 1 Emergency Preparedness kit for each family.
The Superior program offers horse-riding therapy for certain members age 20 and under; up to $15 for membership in a gym. And that's it.
I haven't called to verify some of these items. I plan on asking 1) do I have to take the phone? 2) is membership in Weight Watchers mandatory? 3) Is the program even necessary if I have a primary care giver that doesn't take Medicaid in the first place.
On another piece of paper in this packet they sent me is a list of common questions. It states that this program is required for all Medicaid recipients over age 21 who receive SSI; guess I got my answer to that one. My son turns 21 in May. I don't want him to have a government provided, pre-PROGRAMMED cell phone. I want him to have a cell phone that he can call me if I'm at the grocery store and the power goes off, but not from the government. My son is capable of being by himself for a couple hours, but I'm usually with him. What does he need a phone for? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I know they can put tracking devices in phones. Heck, just a GPS in a phone would tell them where that person is at all times. Do we need to go there? The government knowing where all the people on any government program are at all times?
I think I may just let it lapse, and see if they force me to take a program. I don't use Medicaid anyway. And as soon as our other house sells, we're stopping SSI.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
A Few Thoughts on Bills In Congress
I'm fairly new to politics. I have to admit I don't fully understand the process of how a bill becomes law, beyond Conjunction Junction shows when I was a kid. I always (with blind acceptance, I suppose), assumed a Congressman wrote the bill, and they voted on it. If he/she was from the House, they voted first, and then the Senate would make amendments and vote, then it went to the President.
I've been interested in politics since the health care bill passed. What is that, 2 years in March, or does it just feel that long? Now I realize a lot more goes into it than that simple explanation from my youth. First, I'm ashamed to admit that I have fallen asleep in my duty to be vigilant and watch the government. I know (now) that this happened under the Bush administration, and Clinton and Bush 1 and probably further back than that. It doesn't have a party.
So here is my new understanding of how a bill is passed in Congress:
First a Congressman writes it (we'll say it originated in the House of Representatives). The rest of the Congressmen in the House (some who don't like it at all) will add incentives to it so they can tolerate the bill. They want to make sure that their state gets something in return for signing off on this bill. If it was put up by a Democrat, then the Republicans will ask for more just so they can tolerate it, or so they can explain to the people in their state, "But WE'RE getting X out of this bill, even if we have to swallow the parts we don't like." Same for the other side. So, they finally decide on all the pork that's going into the bill, and now it looks nothing like the original one that was put forward. So they have to give it a good, and usually long name, to include the major points. Some things are hidden on purpose so no one knows unless they read it all. Things like subsidies for farmers, even though the bill was possibly a military bill.
Then they send it to the Senate. They read it on the floor of the Senate, and whatever party originated it, will add more pork to it so their state gets even more bennies from it. The other side will add even more pork so that they can go to their state and say, "We're fighting for you." Now the bill is even bigger. It's sort of like government in general...growing daily.
They don't tell the public about it at all, because they are ruling FOR us. Only those who can wade through thousands of bills even know it's about to be signed. And who has the time to read ALL of the bill(s) that are up for a vote?
Like I said, this is not a party thing. It's bipartisan.
What can we, as Americans do about this? We've made a start. We've woke up. We formed the Tea Party and told both parties that we would no longer elect anyone unless they were fiscal conservatives. We made great strides over the past election, if they were honest in what they said. I believe most of the ones that retained their seats were possibly just going with the flow of public sentiment. They are concerned with their career in politics. In my opinion, career and politics should not fall in the same sentence. Anyone left in the political arena for more than 3 terms has a chance of becoming corrupt. I think we should have term limits for 2 or 3 terms. There are some congressmen who have been there for longer than I've been alive (and that's 47 years).
Now, what can we do besides push for term limits? Their pay AND their pension should be based on how long they were in office. Why should a congressman that is kicked out due to elections (meaning he did a bad job) after one term get thousands of dollars for a pension just like a congressman who has been in for 47 years? And starting them out at what an 0-1 in the military gets might be incentive to get them to do a good job. By the way, an 0-1 would be a Leutenant Junior Grade in the Navy, I'm not sure what that would be in the other services. I'm willing to give them officer's pay, instead of enlisted because enlisted is SO low. Does that say something for our military?
And we should make it to where Congress is NEVER allowed to vote on their own pay increases. It should be put before the American people whether they get a pay raise or not. If public vote says they're doing a good job, they'll get raise. My husband doesn't get a pay increase just because the cost of living went up. As a matter of fact, I don't think he's gotten a raise in about 4 years. The last raise he got was because he threatened to leave, so they gave him a raise to keep him there. Why should the government be any different? And as far as that goes, it should include any government employee. Pay raises should not be automatic.
That would be a good start, along with NO PORK in any bill. And none of these frivolous bills. You know the ones: Some Senator or Congressman dies and they want to rename every federal building out there after him/her. Or they want to designate a day for pickle growers of America. We have enough days designated for different things. All that is, is because they think their voters want it. I have news for you, Congress: We don't want it! If we have to tighten our belts in our homes, YOU SHOULD TOO!
Lori Ann Smith
I've been interested in politics since the health care bill passed. What is that, 2 years in March, or does it just feel that long? Now I realize a lot more goes into it than that simple explanation from my youth. First, I'm ashamed to admit that I have fallen asleep in my duty to be vigilant and watch the government. I know (now) that this happened under the Bush administration, and Clinton and Bush 1 and probably further back than that. It doesn't have a party.
So here is my new understanding of how a bill is passed in Congress:
First a Congressman writes it (we'll say it originated in the House of Representatives). The rest of the Congressmen in the House (some who don't like it at all) will add incentives to it so they can tolerate the bill. They want to make sure that their state gets something in return for signing off on this bill. If it was put up by a Democrat, then the Republicans will ask for more just so they can tolerate it, or so they can explain to the people in their state, "But WE'RE getting X out of this bill, even if we have to swallow the parts we don't like." Same for the other side. So, they finally decide on all the pork that's going into the bill, and now it looks nothing like the original one that was put forward. So they have to give it a good, and usually long name, to include the major points. Some things are hidden on purpose so no one knows unless they read it all. Things like subsidies for farmers, even though the bill was possibly a military bill.
Then they send it to the Senate. They read it on the floor of the Senate, and whatever party originated it, will add more pork to it so their state gets even more bennies from it. The other side will add even more pork so that they can go to their state and say, "We're fighting for you." Now the bill is even bigger. It's sort of like government in general...growing daily.
They don't tell the public about it at all, because they are ruling FOR us. Only those who can wade through thousands of bills even know it's about to be signed. And who has the time to read ALL of the bill(s) that are up for a vote?
Like I said, this is not a party thing. It's bipartisan.
What can we, as Americans do about this? We've made a start. We've woke up. We formed the Tea Party and told both parties that we would no longer elect anyone unless they were fiscal conservatives. We made great strides over the past election, if they were honest in what they said. I believe most of the ones that retained their seats were possibly just going with the flow of public sentiment. They are concerned with their career in politics. In my opinion, career and politics should not fall in the same sentence. Anyone left in the political arena for more than 3 terms has a chance of becoming corrupt. I think we should have term limits for 2 or 3 terms. There are some congressmen who have been there for longer than I've been alive (and that's 47 years).
Now, what can we do besides push for term limits? Their pay AND their pension should be based on how long they were in office. Why should a congressman that is kicked out due to elections (meaning he did a bad job) after one term get thousands of dollars for a pension just like a congressman who has been in for 47 years? And starting them out at what an 0-1 in the military gets might be incentive to get them to do a good job. By the way, an 0-1 would be a Leutenant Junior Grade in the Navy, I'm not sure what that would be in the other services. I'm willing to give them officer's pay, instead of enlisted because enlisted is SO low. Does that say something for our military?
And we should make it to where Congress is NEVER allowed to vote on their own pay increases. It should be put before the American people whether they get a pay raise or not. If public vote says they're doing a good job, they'll get raise. My husband doesn't get a pay increase just because the cost of living went up. As a matter of fact, I don't think he's gotten a raise in about 4 years. The last raise he got was because he threatened to leave, so they gave him a raise to keep him there. Why should the government be any different? And as far as that goes, it should include any government employee. Pay raises should not be automatic.
That would be a good start, along with NO PORK in any bill. And none of these frivolous bills. You know the ones: Some Senator or Congressman dies and they want to rename every federal building out there after him/her. Or they want to designate a day for pickle growers of America. We have enough days designated for different things. All that is, is because they think their voters want it. I have news for you, Congress: We don't want it! If we have to tighten our belts in our homes, YOU SHOULD TOO!
Lori Ann Smith
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Reprint Progresistas en la historia - December
Reprint Progresistas en la historia - December
Reprint Progresistas en la historia
I have committed to reposted this as well, every month. Please help me get this out to our friends who still think best in their native language.
(NOTE: This is a reprint of my Socialists in History, in Spanish.)
Progresistas en la historia
La educación es nuestra mejor defensa. Me he comprometido a publicar algo cada mes, junto con los nombres de los Congresistas progresistas de la historia. Esto es algo que no podemos olvidar. No lo olvidaremos mientras yo aun tenga aliento. Si los progresistas de la oficina quieren que América olvide, tendrán que borrar nuestras memorias, nuestros escritos, nuestros medios electrónicos. En tiempos pasados bastaba con quemar los libros. Obama: ¿Qué esta usted hacienda ahora?
Progresistas en la historia
Mi esposo tiene un excelente set de libros de historia, a nivel de colegio, sorprendente a la vista. De hecho, estos libros son los que usé para mi Carta Abierta al presidente Obama (La cual deberé publicar después). Me ha estado inquietando el concepto del plan de 100 años que los Progresistas tuvieron, y aunque nadie ha salido a decir que ellos tenían un plan de 100 años, de estos libro saqué la idea. Un par de veces se me ha pedido explicar esto, así que eso intento hacer ahora.
Al cambio de siglo, los liberales escogieron llamarse Progresistas porque ellos calcularon que la gente estaría con el progreso. En ese momento hicimos saltos enormes en el progreso. Nuevos inventos de esa época: el teléfono, la luz eléctrica, el automóvil, las calles para carros, los aeroplanos, las fotos con movimiento; el mercado de bienes se desarrollo rápidamente, los granjeros disfrutaron de una prosperidad sin precedentes y el oro se descubrió en 1896 en Alaska. A pesar del pánico de los bancos en 1907, había un marco de ambiente prospero. Teníamos una mentalidad de progreso, de prosperidad en América. Todos los progresistas tuvieron que hacer lo que los relacionaba con la reforma y el progreso. Usted tuvo que tener un gran gobierno para poder tener progreso en sus mentes.
Para esa época, ellos habían establecido el Darwinismo como un hecho. Los más aptos sobreviven. Los otros mueren. Hay una cita de John D. Rockefeller: “El crecimiento de un negocio grande es meramente la supervivencia de los mejores adaptados... Esto no es una tendencia maligna en los negocios. Es meramente el trabajo de la ley de la naturaleza y la ley de Dios”. Así que poniendo estos conceptos juntos, ellos establecieron como un hecho que aquellos en contra de ellos estaban en contra del progreso y que morirían por ser los débiles. Conformaron la elite, una forma más alta de sociedad, mas desarrollada. Ellos también insistían en que los Estados Unidos era una democracia o que debía serlo. Somos una Republica no una Democracia. Pero como se ve aquí, los progresistas eran la elite, no los conservadores. Ellos no eran el hombre común.
En 1911, ellos dirigieron su agenda al sistema educativo. Charles A. Ellwood dijo que las escuelas deberían ser usadas como “un instrumento de conciencia de la reconstrucción social”. Los progresistas quisieron rechazar el aprendizaje religioso y humano (se tomó este como Humanidades o Artes) y experimentar con lo que trabajaría. Ellos querían “socializar” a la juventud. Es allí cuando comenzó la educación centrada en el niño. Esto hizo que las escuelas se fueran camino abajo hasta llegar a lo que tenemos ahora, con el Departamento de Educación tomando el control sobre los maestros dentro del salón de clases.
Los progresistas incluso arrasaron con el movimiento Cristiano, según estos textos, a los que llamaron los detractores (gospellers) sociales. Fueron llamados los atacantes mas viciados del sistema económico americano, pidiendo una reforma de nuestro sistema fiscal. Así pues, temprano en los 1900s, los socialistas se habían infiltrado en las iglesias reclamando reformas y usando la palabra de Dios como su apoyo. Ellos son los que básicamente estuvieron en contra del mercado libre y comenzaron todo este movimiento en contra de Dios para hacerse ricos. Fue allí cuando el muckraking se volvió popular. Adivino que es esto lo que ellos han estado haciendo. Exponer artículos se volvió una practica popular porque la gente estaba hambrienta por conocer la verdad de lo que realmente estaba pasando. Ellos llamaron a David Graham Phillips el traidor del Senado... ¿Suena familiar?
Originalmente, los partidos democráticos eran denominados partidos privados y excluían a los negros. Incluso después de la 14ava Enmienda, a los negros solo se les permitía votar en las elecciones generales. Supongo que no querían que ellos votaran hasta que hubieran decidido por quien ellos podían votar. El sur se volvió sólidamente Democrático. Los progresistas eran aquellos que reclamaban por la segregación. Se volvieron hacia los votos de los negros. En los 1800s, no había segregación, había una separación natural, pero no una forzada segregación. Para la Primera Guerra Mundial, una segregación extensa se había establecido en los estados de la vieja Confederación y los estados vecinos. En 1930, la ordenanza de Birmingham prohibió que negros y blancos jugaran juntos domino o damas. Hay que anotar dos cosas: La segregación fue impuesta por los blancos. La superioridad blanca fue proclamada y la inferioridad negra fue asumida. Booker T. Washington, un prominente líder negro, le pidió a todos: “sufrir en silencio” y ejercitar “la paciencia, (forbearance and patience have the same meaning) y el autocontrol en medio de las condiciones que se vivían”. El quería que ellos mejoraran y compitieran en el mercado. ¡Qué hombre tan inteligente!, mucho más allá de su época. Pero tengo que admitir que yo no creo que hubiera podido hacerlo bajo esas condiciones. Yo creo que todo fue orquestado para escoger el chivo expiatorio para futuros planes. Y es despreciable escoger una raza completa para estos planes…
¿Sabía usted que en 1894 ellos intentaron institucionalizar un ingreso fiscal pero encontraron que era anticonstitucional? La constitución dice que los impuestos deben ser repartidos a los estados de acuerdo a su población, por consentimiento… y eso no es un ingreso fiscal, ¿Acaso sí? Los progresistas se salieron de esta enmendando la cuenta tarifaria. Esta fue nuestra primera redistribución de la abundancia, de los ricos hacia los subsidiados o improductivos en la sociedad. 1913 es también cuando nosotros ratificamos la elección directa de nuestros senadores. Originalmente, los senadores eran representantes de los estados, no de la gente. Se suponía ser un sistema de balance y equilibrio, así los estados tendrían algo de control sobre el congreso.
Los progresistas tuvieron el poder nacional desde 1901 hasta 1921, abarcando las presidencias de Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, y Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt se refirió a su programa como la Repartición Cuadrática y Wilson tuvo su Nueva Libertad. Ninguno profesó ser socialista, pero ambos fijaron el país en una trayectoria socialista. El mismo Rossevelt dijo: “El Nuevo Nacionalismo pone la necesidad nacional antes de la ventaja personal o seccional… Este nuevo Nacionalismo ve al poder ejecutivo como el administrador del bienestar público. Exige de la judicatura que se interese sobre todo en el bienestar humano mas que en la propiedad…” Wilson dijo de su Nueva Libertad: “Yo creo que ha llegado el tiempo cuando el gobierno de este país, tanto nacional como estatal, establezca el escenario… para que la justicia de los hombres actué en cada relación de la vida… Sin la interferencia vigilante, la interferencia resoluta, del gobierno no puede haber juego justo entre los individuos y las instituciones de gran alcance tales como confiables. La libertad es hoy algo más que venir a menos.
El programa de un gobierno de libertad debe, en estos días, ser meramente positivo, no negativo; En otras palabras, es trabajo del gobierno ser pro-activo (dinámico)
El libro de historia dice que en los 1920s, los intelectuales se sintieron alienados por América. Ellos escaparon a Europa.
La Gran Depresión comenzó con la caída del mercado de 1929. Herbert Hoover era el presidente y era considerado como un presidente frio e insensible. En realidad, él creía que el gobierno no debía jugar ningún papel para sacar a los americanos de los lugares bajos donde estaban, que eso le tocaba a las caridades y negocios privados. El decía que una vez que el gobierno se convirtiera en el salvador, ellos dependerían de alguna manera y para siempre de la ayuda del gobierno. ¿Suena familiar? La Depresión fue el final de los conservadores en el poder. Así que los conservadores solo tuvieron el poder de 1922-1932. En 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt fue elegido y los progresistas regresaron al poder. El acusó a la administración del momento de gastar mucho pero dijo que él gastaría dinero en los ciudadanos americanos para liberarlos de la hambruna durante la depresión. ¿Suena esto familiar? Culpar a la administración pasada y gastar, gastar, gastar, pero, tengo excusa para esto.
En ningún momento de la historia ninguna administración ha hecho tanto en sus primeros 100 días para “cuidar” de la gente americana, o demostró más autoridad sobre nuestra economía. A menos que usted esté contando la presente administración. Llegó un punto en el que Roosevelt abiertamente intimidó al congreso, diciéndoles que si ellos no actuaban, él tomaría el poder y actuaría por si mismo. Estábamos en la mitad de la Depresión así que los americanos no veían esto como una usurpación del poder.
Aparentemente, una de las mentiras más grandes fue la Seguridad Social. También fue la mayor redistribución de riqueza con programas que los socialistas nunca antes habían ofrecido. Se estableció el 1% de impuesto sobre los salarios y un 1% correspondiente a los empleadores, y esto debía ponerse en un fondo confiable en la Tesorería. Una acumulación iba a ocurrir. Se estableció que el incremento sería lentamente. Mas adelante, se describió como un programa de seguro que debía asegurarlo para su retiro. Hubieron otros programas que se crearon al conjunto con la Seguridad Social, desde el comienzo eran programas de redistribución: compensación por desempleo, ayuda por menores dependientes, cuidado del menor y de maternidad, niños discapacitados, niños abandonados, programas de salud pública. La Seguridad Social se tornó en un esquema piramidal. Las personas con seguro social pagaban a aquellos que habían estado allí hace mucho tiempo. ¿Acaso la gente no va a la cárcel por organizar esquemas piramidales?
Harry S. Truman se convirtió en presidente después de la muerte de FDR, pero no se proclamó que él fuera un progresista. Aunque no se identificaba como progresista, su plan de Pacto Justo incluyó seguridad de salud a nivel nacional para los americanos, legislación de nuevos “derechos civiles”, leyes de Practicas de Empleo Justas, legislación sobre la vivienda, legislación sobre subsidios a granjeros y expansión de los programas de bienestar…suena progresista para mi. Él institucionalizó los subsidios para reducir la renta a las familias de bajos ingresos. El salario mínimo se incrementó a 75 centavos la hora. Ellos también incrementaron los préstamos de bajo interés a los granjeros. El seguro de salud nacional fue denegado porque la gente se dio cuenta de que esto era un primer paso hacia la medicina socializada. Una cuenta llamada a pagar subsidios directamente a los granjeros en vez de aumentar el costo de los productos agrícolas cuando el ingreso de la granja era inferior de un nivel determinado. Ellos decían que esto sonaba mucho más socialista.
Cuando Eisenhower fue electo en 1956 se conocía poco sobre sus políticas. ¿Se liberaría del gobierno dadivoso? Él era el primer republicano desde el comienzo del Nuevo Pacto. Se describía a si mismo como “básicamente conservativo” y decía que “ en los últimos veinte años el creciente socialismo estaba notándose positivamente en los Estados Unidos.” Pero en 1954, era claro que el no iba a responsabilizarse del gobierno dadivoso. Eisenhower aceptó el estado Dadivoso como un hecho. Eisenhower comenzó a hablar de que tan fructíferos debíamos ser, pero él tuvo el déficit mas alto en tiempo pacifico de la historia: 12.4 billones. El se negó a estar en medio del camino republicano. ¿O es esto un DIABLO? De todos modos, él no podía regresarse al camino del socialismo.
En 1960, John F. Kennedy fue electo presidente, el hombre mas joven elegido para oficiar la Presidencia de los Estados Unidos de América. Él institucionalizó varios programas pero estas series decían que él tenía un congreso democrático hostil. Después de su asesinato Lyndon B. Johnson se convirtió en presidente.
Johnson promulgó la Gran Sociedad, la cual estaba muy cercana a presentarse abiertamente como socialista. Aparentemente, Barry Goldwater vio el significado de ello y presionó por la libertad en su campaña e hizo perder la calma por Johnson. Johnson no se molestaba por tener escrúpulos y usó una combinación de torcer el brazo, sentido del humor y trueques para pasar las cuentas que quería que fueran aprobadas por un congreso controlado por los demócratas. El comité del congreso ncional republicano fue clasificado como el congreso 3B: (por sus letras en ingles) intimidado, criticado y lavados de cerebro. ¿Suena familiar? Johnson probablemente hizo más por el movimiento socialista que cualquier otro de los presidentes modernos. La única cosa que detuvo su momento fue la guerra de Vietnam. Cosa que también acabó con su presidencia.
Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial América había llevado bienestar al exterior. Como está citado en este libro de historia: “…los Estados Unidos promovieron el bienestar y subsidiaron el socialismo en Europa.” El Programa de Recuperación Europeo permite negociaciones entre los países, con todas las protecciones del mercado mundial. Ellos también dependían de Estados Unidos.
Esto trajo nuestra historia a los tiempos modernos, así que yo me detengo aquí. Además, mi mente ya está confundida. Ahora estoy en mi generación, y apenas tengo idea de lo que pasó antes de mi nacimiento. El vencedor escribe la historia. Y la historia ha sido reescrita todo el tiempo. Afortunadamente, nosotros tenemos el poder de elegir nuestros gobernadores y periódicamente hemos interrumpido sus planes a lo largo de estos 100 años. Pero usted puede ver cómo la trayectoria ha vagado y serpenteado por nuestra historia. Nosotros estamos bien dentro de una trayectoria de un estado de niñera. Yo he recogido una mejor apreciación del presidente Hoover. Siempre he escuchado que él fue un hombre frio e insensible, incluso que él no hubiera ayudado a la gente durante la depresión. Pero esa no es la verdad completa, ¿o sí? Es cómo dice la Biblia: Dale a un hombre un pez y lo ayudarás un día. Ensénale como pescar y lo ayudarás para toda la vida. Si continuamos poniendo a la gente en un mundo de bienestar y los dejamos allí ellos habrán aprendido sobre el desamparo. Yo tengo un hijo minusválido. Cuando le enseñaba sobre autosuficiencia siendo él muy joven, me dijeron que no me detuviera cuando él actuara cómo si no supiera hacerlo. Cualquier niño actuará como si no supiera vestirse si él piensa que usted lo va a vestir. ¿Por qué esforzarse si no tiene para que? Si él puede levantar sus manos y usted le pondrá su camisa, ¿Por qué él se va a molestar en hacerlo por sí mismo? Esto es lo que se llama aprender a ser un desamparado. Si yo le muestro a usted los duros momentos por los que estoy pasando y usted viene a ayudarme, yo no tendré que hacer nada. Yo hice lo mismo con mi madre para deshacerme del pepino. Yo removí el pepino en vez de la maleza. Es la naturaleza humana.
Más temprano o más tarde usted tendrá que cortar la ayuda. No estoy en contra del bienestar. Tal vez debería haber un límite de tiempo. Eso haría que la gente hiciera algo para mejorar por si misma. Todos caemos en momentos difíciles y necesitamos de una mano. Pero hay una porción tremenda de programas estatales niñeros y hay personas allí afuera diciéndole a usted cómo jugar al gobierno y conseguir su porcentaje “justo”. ¿Y para aumentar las ayudas gubernamentales e incluir 150% de pobreza e incluir que el gobierno maneje el cuidado medico? Yo no pienso eso. Deberíamos recortar la intervención del gobierno. Necesitamos otro Herbert Hoover ahora.
Fuente: A Basic History of the United States, Volumenes 1-5, por Clarence B. Carson, derechos de autor American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, Julio 1994
Nota agregada en marzo… la reforma del cuidado de salud ha pasado, firmada por Obama, y él está usando el dinero de la gente americana. Hay derechos para los americanos que hacen un 400% de pobreza. Ellos están penalizando a la juventud haciendo que todos los préstamos estudiantiles vayan a través del gobierno. Que cántaro. Y se supone que las condiciones pre-existentes de los ninos hasta los 26 deben cubrirse inmediatamente, pero olvidaron ponerlo en la propuesta. El representante Stupak excavó en una lengua anti-abortista, basado en un orden ejecutivo, el cual no admite ser digno del papel en el que fue escrito. Obama ha hecho pactos, intimidando congresistas, doblando brazos, para conseguir que esta reforma pase cuando en el pasado él había admitido que si la reforma al cuidado medico pasaba con menos del 60% no podría gobernar una nación. Entonces ¿Qué es lo que pretende? Hay un 76% de los Estados Unidos en contra de la reforma pero él de todas maneras esta forzandonos a aceptarla sin escuchar nuestro clamor. El quiere una revolución, así podra declarar una ley marcial y suspender las elecciones y declararse así mismo como un dictador. Eduquese usted mismo. Hay radicales de los 60-70s quienes ya hubieran salido a las calles a quemar cosas como muestra de protesta. Ellos no se explican por qué nosotros no lo hemos hecho.
Yo digo que empecemos a usar camisas desteñidas y hacer mofa de ellos. Regresemos a la charla maravillosa, usemos nuestros cabellos largos y las colas de caballo y empecemos a usar señales de paz. Paz…maravillosa…extraña…
Lori Ann Smith
Luchando por la libertad hasta mi ultimo aliento.
Oren por la paz
Translated by Sandra Davila.
http://loriann12.blogspot.com
(PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO REPRINT FOR NON-PROFIT AS LONG AS MY NAME REMAINS WITH THIS PUBLICATION.)
Reprint Progresistas en la historia
I have committed to reposted this as well, every month. Please help me get this out to our friends who still think best in their native language.
(NOTE: This is a reprint of my Socialists in History, in Spanish.)
Progresistas en la historia
La educación es nuestra mejor defensa. Me he comprometido a publicar algo cada mes, junto con los nombres de los Congresistas progresistas de la historia. Esto es algo que no podemos olvidar. No lo olvidaremos mientras yo aun tenga aliento. Si los progresistas de la oficina quieren que América olvide, tendrán que borrar nuestras memorias, nuestros escritos, nuestros medios electrónicos. En tiempos pasados bastaba con quemar los libros. Obama: ¿Qué esta usted hacienda ahora?
Progresistas en la historia
Mi esposo tiene un excelente set de libros de historia, a nivel de colegio, sorprendente a la vista. De hecho, estos libros son los que usé para mi Carta Abierta al presidente Obama (La cual deberé publicar después). Me ha estado inquietando el concepto del plan de 100 años que los Progresistas tuvieron, y aunque nadie ha salido a decir que ellos tenían un plan de 100 años, de estos libro saqué la idea. Un par de veces se me ha pedido explicar esto, así que eso intento hacer ahora.
Al cambio de siglo, los liberales escogieron llamarse Progresistas porque ellos calcularon que la gente estaría con el progreso. En ese momento hicimos saltos enormes en el progreso. Nuevos inventos de esa época: el teléfono, la luz eléctrica, el automóvil, las calles para carros, los aeroplanos, las fotos con movimiento; el mercado de bienes se desarrollo rápidamente, los granjeros disfrutaron de una prosperidad sin precedentes y el oro se descubrió en 1896 en Alaska. A pesar del pánico de los bancos en 1907, había un marco de ambiente prospero. Teníamos una mentalidad de progreso, de prosperidad en América. Todos los progresistas tuvieron que hacer lo que los relacionaba con la reforma y el progreso. Usted tuvo que tener un gran gobierno para poder tener progreso en sus mentes.
Para esa época, ellos habían establecido el Darwinismo como un hecho. Los más aptos sobreviven. Los otros mueren. Hay una cita de John D. Rockefeller: “El crecimiento de un negocio grande es meramente la supervivencia de los mejores adaptados... Esto no es una tendencia maligna en los negocios. Es meramente el trabajo de la ley de la naturaleza y la ley de Dios”. Así que poniendo estos conceptos juntos, ellos establecieron como un hecho que aquellos en contra de ellos estaban en contra del progreso y que morirían por ser los débiles. Conformaron la elite, una forma más alta de sociedad, mas desarrollada. Ellos también insistían en que los Estados Unidos era una democracia o que debía serlo. Somos una Republica no una Democracia. Pero como se ve aquí, los progresistas eran la elite, no los conservadores. Ellos no eran el hombre común.
En 1911, ellos dirigieron su agenda al sistema educativo. Charles A. Ellwood dijo que las escuelas deberían ser usadas como “un instrumento de conciencia de la reconstrucción social”. Los progresistas quisieron rechazar el aprendizaje religioso y humano (se tomó este como Humanidades o Artes) y experimentar con lo que trabajaría. Ellos querían “socializar” a la juventud. Es allí cuando comenzó la educación centrada en el niño. Esto hizo que las escuelas se fueran camino abajo hasta llegar a lo que tenemos ahora, con el Departamento de Educación tomando el control sobre los maestros dentro del salón de clases.
Los progresistas incluso arrasaron con el movimiento Cristiano, según estos textos, a los que llamaron los detractores (gospellers) sociales. Fueron llamados los atacantes mas viciados del sistema económico americano, pidiendo una reforma de nuestro sistema fiscal. Así pues, temprano en los 1900s, los socialistas se habían infiltrado en las iglesias reclamando reformas y usando la palabra de Dios como su apoyo. Ellos son los que básicamente estuvieron en contra del mercado libre y comenzaron todo este movimiento en contra de Dios para hacerse ricos. Fue allí cuando el muckraking se volvió popular. Adivino que es esto lo que ellos han estado haciendo. Exponer artículos se volvió una practica popular porque la gente estaba hambrienta por conocer la verdad de lo que realmente estaba pasando. Ellos llamaron a David Graham Phillips el traidor del Senado... ¿Suena familiar?
Originalmente, los partidos democráticos eran denominados partidos privados y excluían a los negros. Incluso después de la 14ava Enmienda, a los negros solo se les permitía votar en las elecciones generales. Supongo que no querían que ellos votaran hasta que hubieran decidido por quien ellos podían votar. El sur se volvió sólidamente Democrático. Los progresistas eran aquellos que reclamaban por la segregación. Se volvieron hacia los votos de los negros. En los 1800s, no había segregación, había una separación natural, pero no una forzada segregación. Para la Primera Guerra Mundial, una segregación extensa se había establecido en los estados de la vieja Confederación y los estados vecinos. En 1930, la ordenanza de Birmingham prohibió que negros y blancos jugaran juntos domino o damas. Hay que anotar dos cosas: La segregación fue impuesta por los blancos. La superioridad blanca fue proclamada y la inferioridad negra fue asumida. Booker T. Washington, un prominente líder negro, le pidió a todos: “sufrir en silencio” y ejercitar “la paciencia, (forbearance and patience have the same meaning) y el autocontrol en medio de las condiciones que se vivían”. El quería que ellos mejoraran y compitieran en el mercado. ¡Qué hombre tan inteligente!, mucho más allá de su época. Pero tengo que admitir que yo no creo que hubiera podido hacerlo bajo esas condiciones. Yo creo que todo fue orquestado para escoger el chivo expiatorio para futuros planes. Y es despreciable escoger una raza completa para estos planes…
¿Sabía usted que en 1894 ellos intentaron institucionalizar un ingreso fiscal pero encontraron que era anticonstitucional? La constitución dice que los impuestos deben ser repartidos a los estados de acuerdo a su población, por consentimiento… y eso no es un ingreso fiscal, ¿Acaso sí? Los progresistas se salieron de esta enmendando la cuenta tarifaria. Esta fue nuestra primera redistribución de la abundancia, de los ricos hacia los subsidiados o improductivos en la sociedad. 1913 es también cuando nosotros ratificamos la elección directa de nuestros senadores. Originalmente, los senadores eran representantes de los estados, no de la gente. Se suponía ser un sistema de balance y equilibrio, así los estados tendrían algo de control sobre el congreso.
Los progresistas tuvieron el poder nacional desde 1901 hasta 1921, abarcando las presidencias de Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, y Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt se refirió a su programa como la Repartición Cuadrática y Wilson tuvo su Nueva Libertad. Ninguno profesó ser socialista, pero ambos fijaron el país en una trayectoria socialista. El mismo Rossevelt dijo: “El Nuevo Nacionalismo pone la necesidad nacional antes de la ventaja personal o seccional… Este nuevo Nacionalismo ve al poder ejecutivo como el administrador del bienestar público. Exige de la judicatura que se interese sobre todo en el bienestar humano mas que en la propiedad…” Wilson dijo de su Nueva Libertad: “Yo creo que ha llegado el tiempo cuando el gobierno de este país, tanto nacional como estatal, establezca el escenario… para que la justicia de los hombres actué en cada relación de la vida… Sin la interferencia vigilante, la interferencia resoluta, del gobierno no puede haber juego justo entre los individuos y las instituciones de gran alcance tales como confiables. La libertad es hoy algo más que venir a menos.
El programa de un gobierno de libertad debe, en estos días, ser meramente positivo, no negativo; En otras palabras, es trabajo del gobierno ser pro-activo (dinámico)
El libro de historia dice que en los 1920s, los intelectuales se sintieron alienados por América. Ellos escaparon a Europa.
La Gran Depresión comenzó con la caída del mercado de 1929. Herbert Hoover era el presidente y era considerado como un presidente frio e insensible. En realidad, él creía que el gobierno no debía jugar ningún papel para sacar a los americanos de los lugares bajos donde estaban, que eso le tocaba a las caridades y negocios privados. El decía que una vez que el gobierno se convirtiera en el salvador, ellos dependerían de alguna manera y para siempre de la ayuda del gobierno. ¿Suena familiar? La Depresión fue el final de los conservadores en el poder. Así que los conservadores solo tuvieron el poder de 1922-1932. En 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt fue elegido y los progresistas regresaron al poder. El acusó a la administración del momento de gastar mucho pero dijo que él gastaría dinero en los ciudadanos americanos para liberarlos de la hambruna durante la depresión. ¿Suena esto familiar? Culpar a la administración pasada y gastar, gastar, gastar, pero, tengo excusa para esto.
En ningún momento de la historia ninguna administración ha hecho tanto en sus primeros 100 días para “cuidar” de la gente americana, o demostró más autoridad sobre nuestra economía. A menos que usted esté contando la presente administración. Llegó un punto en el que Roosevelt abiertamente intimidó al congreso, diciéndoles que si ellos no actuaban, él tomaría el poder y actuaría por si mismo. Estábamos en la mitad de la Depresión así que los americanos no veían esto como una usurpación del poder.
Aparentemente, una de las mentiras más grandes fue la Seguridad Social. También fue la mayor redistribución de riqueza con programas que los socialistas nunca antes habían ofrecido. Se estableció el 1% de impuesto sobre los salarios y un 1% correspondiente a los empleadores, y esto debía ponerse en un fondo confiable en la Tesorería. Una acumulación iba a ocurrir. Se estableció que el incremento sería lentamente. Mas adelante, se describió como un programa de seguro que debía asegurarlo para su retiro. Hubieron otros programas que se crearon al conjunto con la Seguridad Social, desde el comienzo eran programas de redistribución: compensación por desempleo, ayuda por menores dependientes, cuidado del menor y de maternidad, niños discapacitados, niños abandonados, programas de salud pública. La Seguridad Social se tornó en un esquema piramidal. Las personas con seguro social pagaban a aquellos que habían estado allí hace mucho tiempo. ¿Acaso la gente no va a la cárcel por organizar esquemas piramidales?
Harry S. Truman se convirtió en presidente después de la muerte de FDR, pero no se proclamó que él fuera un progresista. Aunque no se identificaba como progresista, su plan de Pacto Justo incluyó seguridad de salud a nivel nacional para los americanos, legislación de nuevos “derechos civiles”, leyes de Practicas de Empleo Justas, legislación sobre la vivienda, legislación sobre subsidios a granjeros y expansión de los programas de bienestar…suena progresista para mi. Él institucionalizó los subsidios para reducir la renta a las familias de bajos ingresos. El salario mínimo se incrementó a 75 centavos la hora. Ellos también incrementaron los préstamos de bajo interés a los granjeros. El seguro de salud nacional fue denegado porque la gente se dio cuenta de que esto era un primer paso hacia la medicina socializada. Una cuenta llamada a pagar subsidios directamente a los granjeros en vez de aumentar el costo de los productos agrícolas cuando el ingreso de la granja era inferior de un nivel determinado. Ellos decían que esto sonaba mucho más socialista.
Cuando Eisenhower fue electo en 1956 se conocía poco sobre sus políticas. ¿Se liberaría del gobierno dadivoso? Él era el primer republicano desde el comienzo del Nuevo Pacto. Se describía a si mismo como “básicamente conservativo” y decía que “ en los últimos veinte años el creciente socialismo estaba notándose positivamente en los Estados Unidos.” Pero en 1954, era claro que el no iba a responsabilizarse del gobierno dadivoso. Eisenhower aceptó el estado Dadivoso como un hecho. Eisenhower comenzó a hablar de que tan fructíferos debíamos ser, pero él tuvo el déficit mas alto en tiempo pacifico de la historia: 12.4 billones. El se negó a estar en medio del camino republicano. ¿O es esto un DIABLO? De todos modos, él no podía regresarse al camino del socialismo.
En 1960, John F. Kennedy fue electo presidente, el hombre mas joven elegido para oficiar la Presidencia de los Estados Unidos de América. Él institucionalizó varios programas pero estas series decían que él tenía un congreso democrático hostil. Después de su asesinato Lyndon B. Johnson se convirtió en presidente.
Johnson promulgó la Gran Sociedad, la cual estaba muy cercana a presentarse abiertamente como socialista. Aparentemente, Barry Goldwater vio el significado de ello y presionó por la libertad en su campaña e hizo perder la calma por Johnson. Johnson no se molestaba por tener escrúpulos y usó una combinación de torcer el brazo, sentido del humor y trueques para pasar las cuentas que quería que fueran aprobadas por un congreso controlado por los demócratas. El comité del congreso ncional republicano fue clasificado como el congreso 3B: (por sus letras en ingles) intimidado, criticado y lavados de cerebro. ¿Suena familiar? Johnson probablemente hizo más por el movimiento socialista que cualquier otro de los presidentes modernos. La única cosa que detuvo su momento fue la guerra de Vietnam. Cosa que también acabó con su presidencia.
Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial América había llevado bienestar al exterior. Como está citado en este libro de historia: “…los Estados Unidos promovieron el bienestar y subsidiaron el socialismo en Europa.” El Programa de Recuperación Europeo permite negociaciones entre los países, con todas las protecciones del mercado mundial. Ellos también dependían de Estados Unidos.
Esto trajo nuestra historia a los tiempos modernos, así que yo me detengo aquí. Además, mi mente ya está confundida. Ahora estoy en mi generación, y apenas tengo idea de lo que pasó antes de mi nacimiento. El vencedor escribe la historia. Y la historia ha sido reescrita todo el tiempo. Afortunadamente, nosotros tenemos el poder de elegir nuestros gobernadores y periódicamente hemos interrumpido sus planes a lo largo de estos 100 años. Pero usted puede ver cómo la trayectoria ha vagado y serpenteado por nuestra historia. Nosotros estamos bien dentro de una trayectoria de un estado de niñera. Yo he recogido una mejor apreciación del presidente Hoover. Siempre he escuchado que él fue un hombre frio e insensible, incluso que él no hubiera ayudado a la gente durante la depresión. Pero esa no es la verdad completa, ¿o sí? Es cómo dice la Biblia: Dale a un hombre un pez y lo ayudarás un día. Ensénale como pescar y lo ayudarás para toda la vida. Si continuamos poniendo a la gente en un mundo de bienestar y los dejamos allí ellos habrán aprendido sobre el desamparo. Yo tengo un hijo minusválido. Cuando le enseñaba sobre autosuficiencia siendo él muy joven, me dijeron que no me detuviera cuando él actuara cómo si no supiera hacerlo. Cualquier niño actuará como si no supiera vestirse si él piensa que usted lo va a vestir. ¿Por qué esforzarse si no tiene para que? Si él puede levantar sus manos y usted le pondrá su camisa, ¿Por qué él se va a molestar en hacerlo por sí mismo? Esto es lo que se llama aprender a ser un desamparado. Si yo le muestro a usted los duros momentos por los que estoy pasando y usted viene a ayudarme, yo no tendré que hacer nada. Yo hice lo mismo con mi madre para deshacerme del pepino. Yo removí el pepino en vez de la maleza. Es la naturaleza humana.
Más temprano o más tarde usted tendrá que cortar la ayuda. No estoy en contra del bienestar. Tal vez debería haber un límite de tiempo. Eso haría que la gente hiciera algo para mejorar por si misma. Todos caemos en momentos difíciles y necesitamos de una mano. Pero hay una porción tremenda de programas estatales niñeros y hay personas allí afuera diciéndole a usted cómo jugar al gobierno y conseguir su porcentaje “justo”. ¿Y para aumentar las ayudas gubernamentales e incluir 150% de pobreza e incluir que el gobierno maneje el cuidado medico? Yo no pienso eso. Deberíamos recortar la intervención del gobierno. Necesitamos otro Herbert Hoover ahora.
Fuente: A Basic History of the United States, Volumenes 1-5, por Clarence B. Carson, derechos de autor American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, Julio 1994
Nota agregada en marzo… la reforma del cuidado de salud ha pasado, firmada por Obama, y él está usando el dinero de la gente americana. Hay derechos para los americanos que hacen un 400% de pobreza. Ellos están penalizando a la juventud haciendo que todos los préstamos estudiantiles vayan a través del gobierno. Que cántaro. Y se supone que las condiciones pre-existentes de los ninos hasta los 26 deben cubrirse inmediatamente, pero olvidaron ponerlo en la propuesta. El representante Stupak excavó en una lengua anti-abortista, basado en un orden ejecutivo, el cual no admite ser digno del papel en el que fue escrito. Obama ha hecho pactos, intimidando congresistas, doblando brazos, para conseguir que esta reforma pase cuando en el pasado él había admitido que si la reforma al cuidado medico pasaba con menos del 60% no podría gobernar una nación. Entonces ¿Qué es lo que pretende? Hay un 76% de los Estados Unidos en contra de la reforma pero él de todas maneras esta forzandonos a aceptarla sin escuchar nuestro clamor. El quiere una revolución, así podra declarar una ley marcial y suspender las elecciones y declararse así mismo como un dictador. Eduquese usted mismo. Hay radicales de los 60-70s quienes ya hubieran salido a las calles a quemar cosas como muestra de protesta. Ellos no se explican por qué nosotros no lo hemos hecho.
Yo digo que empecemos a usar camisas desteñidas y hacer mofa de ellos. Regresemos a la charla maravillosa, usemos nuestros cabellos largos y las colas de caballo y empecemos a usar señales de paz. Paz…maravillosa…extraña…
Lori Ann Smith
Luchando por la libertad hasta mi ultimo aliento.
Oren por la paz
Translated by Sandra Davila.
http://loriann12.blogspot.com
(PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO REPRINT FOR NON-PROFIT AS LONG AS MY NAME REMAINS WITH THIS PUBLICATION.)
December Repost of Progressives in History
December Repost of Progressives in History
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month, along with the names of all the progressive Congressmen. This is something we can not forget. We will not forget as long as I have breath in me. If the Progressives in office want America to forget, they will have to erase it from our minds, our print, our electronic media. In the old days, you could just burn the books. What are you going to do now, Obama?
August Note: We've now passed the Jobs bill, even though Americans didn't want it either. And hidden in the Jobs bill, are parts of Cap and Trade, waiting for the rest of it. Sooner and later, Cap and Trade, also known as Cap and Tax, will be passed against the will of the people. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable.
December Note: And now we've passed more legislation than I can remember that the American People don't want. And most was passed during the Lame Duck session. I've only been into politics for a short time, and all these terms are new to me. Why is it that Congressmen who have been voted out of office, get to remain in office for 2 months so they can damage the country? The new congressmen should be sworn in the day after the elections. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. I'm a veteran from 22 years ago. We had gays in the military then, and it wasn't really an issue. I had one woman tell me she would rather bend a straight woman than date another gay woman. Are we going to be dealing with out-right sexual assaults now? How can you file a complaint without being labeled a bigot? We are in a Constitutional Crisis and America needs to wake up!
Progressives in History
My husband has an excellent set of History books, college level, that are just astounding in their insight. As a matter of fact, they're the ones I used in my Open Letter To President Obama. (Which I may post at a later date.) I've been tossing around the concept of the 100 year plan that the Progressives had, and, though it doesn't come out and say they had a 100 year plan, these books are where I got that idea. I've been asked a couple times to explain that, so this is my attempt to do just that.
At the turn of the century, the liberals chose to call themselves Progressives because they figured the people would be for progress. We were making huge leaps in progress at that time. There were new inventions all the time: the telephone, electric lighting, the automobile, the streetcar, the airplane, motion pictures, marketing of goods was quickly being developed, farmers were enjoying unprecedented prosperity and gold had been discovered in 1896 in Alaska. Although there had been a banking panic in 1907, there was a framework of prosperity set. We had a mindset of progress, of prosperity in America. All the progressives had to do was link themselves to reform and progress. And they also linked big government to progress. You had to have big government in order to have progress, in their minds.
They had already established Darwinism as fact by this time. The fittest survive. The unfit die out. There is a quote from John D. Rockefeller: " The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest.....This is not an evil tendency of business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God." So, by linking these concepts together, they established as fact that those against them were against progress, and would die out because they were weak. They were becoming more elite, a higher form of society, evolving. They were also pushing that the United States was a democracy, or that it ought to be. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. But as you see here, the progressives were the elite, not the conservatives. They were not for the common man.
In 1911, they turned their agenda to the school system. Charles A. Ellwood said, that the schools should be used as "a conscious instrument of social reconstruction." The progressives wanted to throw out religious and humane learning, (I take that as the humanities, or arts) and experiment with what would work. They wanted to "socialize" the young. This is when child-centered education began. This started the schools down the road towards what we have now, with the Department of Education taking the control away from the teacher in the classroom.
The progressives had even crept into the Christian movement, according to these texts, who call them the social gospellers. It calls them the most vicious attackers of the American economic system, calling for reform of our tax system. So, in the early 1900's socialists had infiltrated the churches and were calling on reforms and using God's word to back it up. They are the ones who basically were against the free market and started this whole movement that it was against God to be rich.
This is when muckraking became popular. I guess that's what we're doing. Expose articles became popular because the people were hungry for the truth about what was really going on. They list David Graham Phillips' Treason of the Senate...sound familiar?
Originally, Democratic Parties in the south were deemed private parties and excluded blacks. Even with the 14th amendment, blacks were only allowed to vote in the general elections. I guess they didn't want them voting until they had decided who they could vote for. And the south had become solidly Democratic. The progressives were the ones who pushed for segregation. They turned on the black voters. In the late 1800's there was no segregation, there was natural separation, but no forced segregation. By World War I, widespread segregation had been established in the states of the old Confederacy and the neighboring states. By 1930, Birmingham ordinance prohibited Negroes and whites from playing dominoes or checkers together. Two things need to be noted. Segregation was imposed by whites. White superiority was proclaimed, and black inferiority was assumed. Booker T. Washington, a prominent Black leader of the period, told everyone: "to suffer in silence," and to exercise "patience, forbearance, and self-control in the midst of trying conditions." He wanted them to improve themselves and compete in the market. What a smart man, beyond his years. But I have to admit, I don't think I would be able to under those conditions. I believe it was all orchestrated to chose a scapegoat for their future plans. And it's despicable to choose a whole race for your plans...
Did you know that in 1894 they tried to institute an income tax but found it to be unconstitutional? The constitution says that taxes are to be given out by the states according to population, and by consent...and that's not an income tax, is it? The progressives got around that by amending the tariff bill. This was our first redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the subsidized or unproductive in society. In 1913 is also when we ratified direct election of our Senators. Originally, the Senators were to represent the States, not the people. It was supposed to be one of the checks and balances, so the States had some control over congress.
The progressives were in power nationally from 1901 until 1921, covering the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt referred to his program as the Square Deal, and Wilson had his New Freedom. Neither one professed to be socialists, but they set the country on a path towards socialism. Roosevelt said himself, "The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage. . . .This New Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than property..." Wilson said of his New Freedom, "I believe that the time has come when the government of this country, both state and national, have to set the stage...for the doing of justice to men in every relationship of life....Without the watchful interference, the resolute interference, of the government, there can be no fair play between individuals and such powerful institutions as the trusts. Freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of a government of freedom must in these days be positive, not negative merely." In other words, it's the government's job to be pro-active.
The history book says that in the 1920's, the intellectuals felt alienated from America. They fled to Europe.
The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929. Herbert Hoover was the President, and was considered a cold and calloused president. Actually, he believed that the government should play no roll in picking Americans up out of the low place they were in, that it should be the place of private charities and businesses. He said that once government became the saviour, they would forever be dependant on government aide of some kind. Sound familiar? The Depression was the end of the conservatives in power. So the conservatives only had power from 1922-1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and the progressives were back in office. He accused the present administration of too much spending, but said that he would spend money on American citizens in order to keep them from starving in the depression. Does that sound familiar? Blame the past administration and spend, spend, spend, but I have an excuse to do so.
At no point in history had any administration had so much been done in the first 100 days to "take care" of the American people, or assert so much authority over our economy. Unless you count the current administration. At one point Roosevelt openly threatened congress, saying if they didn't act, he would take the power and act himself. We were in the midst of a Depression, so the American people didn't see it as a usurpation of power.
One of the biggest lies, apparently, was Social Security. It was also the biggest redistribution of wealth programs the socialists ever came up with. It was set up as a 1% tax on wages and a 1% match by employers and was to be put in a trust fund in the Treasury. An accumulation was to occur. It was set up to slowly increase. Later it was described as an insurance program, I suppose for insuring when you retire. There were programs set up within Social Security that were redistribution programs from the beginning: unemployment compensation, aid to dependant children, maternal and child care, to crippled children, to neglected children, for public health programs. Social Security turned out to be a pyramid scheme. The people coming in to Social Security pay the ones who came in a long time ago. Don't people go to jail for setting up pyramid schemes?
Harry S. Truman became President upon FDR's death, but it doesn't claim he was a progressive. Although he didn't run as a progressive, his Fair Deal plan included a national health insurance for Americans, new "civil rights" legislation, Fair Employment Practices enactments, housing legislation, farming legislation with subsidies, and expansion of the welfare programs...sounds progressive to me. He instituted subsidies to reduce the rent for low income families. The minimum wage was increased to 75 cents an hour. They also increased low interest loans to farmers. The national health insurance was voted down because the people realized it was the first step to socialized medicine. One bill called for paying subsidies directly to farmers instead of driving up the cost of farm products when farm income fell below a certain level. They said it sounded too much like socialism.
When Eisenhower got elected in 1956 there was little known about his political views. Would he get rid of the welfare state? He was the first Republican since the beginning of the New Deal. He described himself as "basically conservative," and said that, "in the last twenty years creeping socialism has been striking in the United States." But, by 1954, it was clear that he wasn't going to take on the welfare state. Eisenhower accepted the Welfare state as fact. Eisenhower came in talking about how frugal we should be, but he had the highest deficit in peacetime history to that point: 12.4 billion. He turned out to be a middle of the road Republican. Or is it a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only)? Either way, he couldn't turn the tide back from the path to socialism.
In 1960, we elected John F. Kennedy, the youngest man elected to the office of President of the United States of America. He did institute several programs, but this series said he had a hostile Democratic congress. Upon his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson became President.
Johnson pushed the Great Society, which was real close to being openly socialist. Apparently, Barry Goldwater saw the significance of it, and he pushed for liberty in his campaign and lost the moderates to Johnson. Johnson wasn't bothered by scruples, and used a combination of arm twisting, cajolery and trades to get the bills he wanted passed in a Democrat controlled Congress. the National Republican Congressional Committee classified it as a 3B congress: bullied, badgered and brainwashed. Does that sound familiar? Johnson probably did more for the socialist movement than did any modern president. The only thing that stopped his momentum was the Viet Nam War. It also ended his presidency.
After World War II, America has even pushed Welfare abroad. As quoted from this history book, " ...the United States promoted welfarism and subsidized socialism in Europe." The European Recovery Program allows countries to trade with each other, yet shields them from the world market. They are also dependant on the United States.
This brings our history up to modern times, so I'll quit here. Besides, my mind is boggled. I am now in my generation, and had just no idea of what had gone on before my birth. The victor writes history. And history is being rewritten all the time. Luckily, we have the power to elect our officials, and we have periodically disrupted their plan through out these 100 years. But you can see how the path has wandered and meandered through our history. We are well on the path to a nanny state. I have gotten a much better appreciation for President Hoover. I had always heard that he was the cold and callous man, that he wouldn't even help people during the depression. But that isn't entirely true, is it? It's like the Bible says. Give a man a fish and help him for a day. Teach him to fish and help him for a life time. If we continue to put people on welfare, and leave them there, they will have learned helplessness. I have a handicapped son. When I was teaching him self-care when he was very young, I was told not to give up when he acted as though he didn't know how to do it. Any child will act as though he doesn't know how to get dressed if he thinks you're going to dress him. Why put out the effort if he doesn't have to? If he can stand there and hold up his arms and you'll put on his shirt, why should he struggle to do it himself? It's called learned helplessness. If I show how hard of a time I'm having, you'll come help me, and I won't have to do it. I did the same thing to get out of weeding the cucumbers with my mother. I weeded the cucumbers instead of the weeds. It's human nature.
Sooner or later you have to cut off the aide. I'm not against Welfare. Maybe there should be a time limit. That would encourage people to do something to better themselves. Everyone falls on hard times, and needs a hand up. But, there are an awful lot of nanny state programs, and there are people out there to tell you how to play the government and get your "fair" share. And to broaden government aide to include 150% of poverty and include government run health care? I don't think so. We should be shrinking government involvement. We need another Herbert Hoover about now.
Source: A Basic History of the United States, Volumes 1-5, by Clarence B. Carson, copyright American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, July 1994
Note added in March...the health care bill has passed, signed by Obama, and he's even bribing the American people. There are entitlements for Americans who make 400% of poverty. They are penalizing the young, by causing all student loans to go through the government. What a crock. And pre-existing conditions for children up to 26 were supposed to be covered immediately, but they forgot to put it in the bill. Rep Stupak caved on Pro-life language, based on an executive order, which he admits isn't worth the paper it's written on. Obama has been making deals, threatening congressmen, twisting arms, to get this bill passed, when in the past he has admitted that if you pass health care with less than 60%, you can't govern a nation. So, what does he intend to do? There is 76% of the United States against this bill, but he shoved it down our throats anyway. He wants a revolution so he can declare martial law and suspend the election and declare himself a dictator. Educate yourself. These are radicals from the 60-70's who would have already turned to burning the streets had the tables been turned. They can't figure out why we haven't.
I say we all start wearing tie dye shirts and make fun of them. Let's bring back the groovy talk, wear our hair long, in pony tails and start sporting peace signs. Peace out....groovy....freaky, deaky...man.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my dying breath.
Pray for peace
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month, along with the names of all the progressive Congressmen. This is something we can not forget. We will not forget as long as I have breath in me. If the Progressives in office want America to forget, they will have to erase it from our minds, our print, our electronic media. In the old days, you could just burn the books. What are you going to do now, Obama?
August Note: We've now passed the Jobs bill, even though Americans didn't want it either. And hidden in the Jobs bill, are parts of Cap and Trade, waiting for the rest of it. Sooner and later, Cap and Trade, also known as Cap and Tax, will be passed against the will of the people. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable.
December Note: And now we've passed more legislation than I can remember that the American People don't want. And most was passed during the Lame Duck session. I've only been into politics for a short time, and all these terms are new to me. Why is it that Congressmen who have been voted out of office, get to remain in office for 2 months so they can damage the country? The new congressmen should be sworn in the day after the elections. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. I'm a veteran from 22 years ago. We had gays in the military then, and it wasn't really an issue. I had one woman tell me she would rather bend a straight woman than date another gay woman. Are we going to be dealing with out-right sexual assaults now? How can you file a complaint without being labeled a bigot? We are in a Constitutional Crisis and America needs to wake up!
Progressives in History
My husband has an excellent set of History books, college level, that are just astounding in their insight. As a matter of fact, they're the ones I used in my Open Letter To President Obama. (Which I may post at a later date.) I've been tossing around the concept of the 100 year plan that the Progressives had, and, though it doesn't come out and say they had a 100 year plan, these books are where I got that idea. I've been asked a couple times to explain that, so this is my attempt to do just that.
At the turn of the century, the liberals chose to call themselves Progressives because they figured the people would be for progress. We were making huge leaps in progress at that time. There were new inventions all the time: the telephone, electric lighting, the automobile, the streetcar, the airplane, motion pictures, marketing of goods was quickly being developed, farmers were enjoying unprecedented prosperity and gold had been discovered in 1896 in Alaska. Although there had been a banking panic in 1907, there was a framework of prosperity set. We had a mindset of progress, of prosperity in America. All the progressives had to do was link themselves to reform and progress. And they also linked big government to progress. You had to have big government in order to have progress, in their minds.
They had already established Darwinism as fact by this time. The fittest survive. The unfit die out. There is a quote from John D. Rockefeller: " The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest.....This is not an evil tendency of business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God." So, by linking these concepts together, they established as fact that those against them were against progress, and would die out because they were weak. They were becoming more elite, a higher form of society, evolving. They were also pushing that the United States was a democracy, or that it ought to be. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. But as you see here, the progressives were the elite, not the conservatives. They were not for the common man.
In 1911, they turned their agenda to the school system. Charles A. Ellwood said, that the schools should be used as "a conscious instrument of social reconstruction." The progressives wanted to throw out religious and humane learning, (I take that as the humanities, or arts) and experiment with what would work. They wanted to "socialize" the young. This is when child-centered education began. This started the schools down the road towards what we have now, with the Department of Education taking the control away from the teacher in the classroom.
The progressives had even crept into the Christian movement, according to these texts, who call them the social gospellers. It calls them the most vicious attackers of the American economic system, calling for reform of our tax system. So, in the early 1900's socialists had infiltrated the churches and were calling on reforms and using God's word to back it up. They are the ones who basically were against the free market and started this whole movement that it was against God to be rich.
This is when muckraking became popular. I guess that's what we're doing. Expose articles became popular because the people were hungry for the truth about what was really going on. They list David Graham Phillips' Treason of the Senate...sound familiar?
Originally, Democratic Parties in the south were deemed private parties and excluded blacks. Even with the 14th amendment, blacks were only allowed to vote in the general elections. I guess they didn't want them voting until they had decided who they could vote for. And the south had become solidly Democratic. The progressives were the ones who pushed for segregation. They turned on the black voters. In the late 1800's there was no segregation, there was natural separation, but no forced segregation. By World War I, widespread segregation had been established in the states of the old Confederacy and the neighboring states. By 1930, Birmingham ordinance prohibited Negroes and whites from playing dominoes or checkers together. Two things need to be noted. Segregation was imposed by whites. White superiority was proclaimed, and black inferiority was assumed. Booker T. Washington, a prominent Black leader of the period, told everyone: "to suffer in silence," and to exercise "patience, forbearance, and self-control in the midst of trying conditions." He wanted them to improve themselves and compete in the market. What a smart man, beyond his years. But I have to admit, I don't think I would be able to under those conditions. I believe it was all orchestrated to chose a scapegoat for their future plans. And it's despicable to choose a whole race for your plans...
Did you know that in 1894 they tried to institute an income tax but found it to be unconstitutional? The constitution says that taxes are to be given out by the states according to population, and by consent...and that's not an income tax, is it? The progressives got around that by amending the tariff bill. This was our first redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the subsidized or unproductive in society. In 1913 is also when we ratified direct election of our Senators. Originally, the Senators were to represent the States, not the people. It was supposed to be one of the checks and balances, so the States had some control over congress.
The progressives were in power nationally from 1901 until 1921, covering the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt referred to his program as the Square Deal, and Wilson had his New Freedom. Neither one professed to be socialists, but they set the country on a path towards socialism. Roosevelt said himself, "The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage. . . .This New Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than property..." Wilson said of his New Freedom, "I believe that the time has come when the government of this country, both state and national, have to set the stage...for the doing of justice to men in every relationship of life....Without the watchful interference, the resolute interference, of the government, there can be no fair play between individuals and such powerful institutions as the trusts. Freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of a government of freedom must in these days be positive, not negative merely." In other words, it's the government's job to be pro-active.
The history book says that in the 1920's, the intellectuals felt alienated from America. They fled to Europe.
The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929. Herbert Hoover was the President, and was considered a cold and calloused president. Actually, he believed that the government should play no roll in picking Americans up out of the low place they were in, that it should be the place of private charities and businesses. He said that once government became the saviour, they would forever be dependant on government aide of some kind. Sound familiar? The Depression was the end of the conservatives in power. So the conservatives only had power from 1922-1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and the progressives were back in office. He accused the present administration of too much spending, but said that he would spend money on American citizens in order to keep them from starving in the depression. Does that sound familiar? Blame the past administration and spend, spend, spend, but I have an excuse to do so.
At no point in history had any administration had so much been done in the first 100 days to "take care" of the American people, or assert so much authority over our economy. Unless you count the current administration. At one point Roosevelt openly threatened congress, saying if they didn't act, he would take the power and act himself. We were in the midst of a Depression, so the American people didn't see it as a usurpation of power.
One of the biggest lies, apparently, was Social Security. It was also the biggest redistribution of wealth programs the socialists ever came up with. It was set up as a 1% tax on wages and a 1% match by employers and was to be put in a trust fund in the Treasury. An accumulation was to occur. It was set up to slowly increase. Later it was described as an insurance program, I suppose for insuring when you retire. There were programs set up within Social Security that were redistribution programs from the beginning: unemployment compensation, aid to dependant children, maternal and child care, to crippled children, to neglected children, for public health programs. Social Security turned out to be a pyramid scheme. The people coming in to Social Security pay the ones who came in a long time ago. Don't people go to jail for setting up pyramid schemes?
Harry S. Truman became President upon FDR's death, but it doesn't claim he was a progressive. Although he didn't run as a progressive, his Fair Deal plan included a national health insurance for Americans, new "civil rights" legislation, Fair Employment Practices enactments, housing legislation, farming legislation with subsidies, and expansion of the welfare programs...sounds progressive to me. He instituted subsidies to reduce the rent for low income families. The minimum wage was increased to 75 cents an hour. They also increased low interest loans to farmers. The national health insurance was voted down because the people realized it was the first step to socialized medicine. One bill called for paying subsidies directly to farmers instead of driving up the cost of farm products when farm income fell below a certain level. They said it sounded too much like socialism.
When Eisenhower got elected in 1956 there was little known about his political views. Would he get rid of the welfare state? He was the first Republican since the beginning of the New Deal. He described himself as "basically conservative," and said that, "in the last twenty years creeping socialism has been striking in the United States." But, by 1954, it was clear that he wasn't going to take on the welfare state. Eisenhower accepted the Welfare state as fact. Eisenhower came in talking about how frugal we should be, but he had the highest deficit in peacetime history to that point: 12.4 billion. He turned out to be a middle of the road Republican. Or is it a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only)? Either way, he couldn't turn the tide back from the path to socialism.
In 1960, we elected John F. Kennedy, the youngest man elected to the office of President of the United States of America. He did institute several programs, but this series said he had a hostile Democratic congress. Upon his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson became President.
Johnson pushed the Great Society, which was real close to being openly socialist. Apparently, Barry Goldwater saw the significance of it, and he pushed for liberty in his campaign and lost the moderates to Johnson. Johnson wasn't bothered by scruples, and used a combination of arm twisting, cajolery and trades to get the bills he wanted passed in a Democrat controlled Congress. the National Republican Congressional Committee classified it as a 3B congress: bullied, badgered and brainwashed. Does that sound familiar? Johnson probably did more for the socialist movement than did any modern president. The only thing that stopped his momentum was the Viet Nam War. It also ended his presidency.
After World War II, America has even pushed Welfare abroad. As quoted from this history book, " ...the United States promoted welfarism and subsidized socialism in Europe." The European Recovery Program allows countries to trade with each other, yet shields them from the world market. They are also dependant on the United States.
This brings our history up to modern times, so I'll quit here. Besides, my mind is boggled. I am now in my generation, and had just no idea of what had gone on before my birth. The victor writes history. And history is being rewritten all the time. Luckily, we have the power to elect our officials, and we have periodically disrupted their plan through out these 100 years. But you can see how the path has wandered and meandered through our history. We are well on the path to a nanny state. I have gotten a much better appreciation for President Hoover. I had always heard that he was the cold and callous man, that he wouldn't even help people during the depression. But that isn't entirely true, is it? It's like the Bible says. Give a man a fish and help him for a day. Teach him to fish and help him for a life time. If we continue to put people on welfare, and leave them there, they will have learned helplessness. I have a handicapped son. When I was teaching him self-care when he was very young, I was told not to give up when he acted as though he didn't know how to do it. Any child will act as though he doesn't know how to get dressed if he thinks you're going to dress him. Why put out the effort if he doesn't have to? If he can stand there and hold up his arms and you'll put on his shirt, why should he struggle to do it himself? It's called learned helplessness. If I show how hard of a time I'm having, you'll come help me, and I won't have to do it. I did the same thing to get out of weeding the cucumbers with my mother. I weeded the cucumbers instead of the weeds. It's human nature.
Sooner or later you have to cut off the aide. I'm not against Welfare. Maybe there should be a time limit. That would encourage people to do something to better themselves. Everyone falls on hard times, and needs a hand up. But, there are an awful lot of nanny state programs, and there are people out there to tell you how to play the government and get your "fair" share. And to broaden government aide to include 150% of poverty and include government run health care? I don't think so. We should be shrinking government involvement. We need another Herbert Hoover about now.
Source: A Basic History of the United States, Volumes 1-5, by Clarence B. Carson, copyright American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, July 1994
Note added in March...the health care bill has passed, signed by Obama, and he's even bribing the American people. There are entitlements for Americans who make 400% of poverty. They are penalizing the young, by causing all student loans to go through the government. What a crock. And pre-existing conditions for children up to 26 were supposed to be covered immediately, but they forgot to put it in the bill. Rep Stupak caved on Pro-life language, based on an executive order, which he admits isn't worth the paper it's written on. Obama has been making deals, threatening congressmen, twisting arms, to get this bill passed, when in the past he has admitted that if you pass health care with less than 60%, you can't govern a nation. So, what does he intend to do? There is 76% of the United States against this bill, but he shoved it down our throats anyway. He wants a revolution so he can declare martial law and suspend the election and declare himself a dictator. Educate yourself. These are radicals from the 60-70's who would have already turned to burning the streets had the tables been turned. They can't figure out why we haven't.
I say we all start wearing tie dye shirts and make fun of them. Let's bring back the groovy talk, wear our hair long, in pony tails and start sporting peace signs. Peace out....groovy....freaky, deaky...man.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my dying breath.
Pray for peace
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Do You Want the Government Bureaucracy Deciding about Your Food?
I've decided to go over S510 just to see what's in it. I know I've read the horror stories, but I want to see for myself what the bill says. You know, they couldn't get the bill passed on it's own merit, so they tacked it in another bill so it would pass. Doesn't that just sound like the government?
First off, most people skip the definitions, but I've learned that's where they get you. They can redefine something that you THOUGHT you knew the definition of. The first thing I run into is this: They're talking about inspecting records, and they want the right to inspect any food that could be contaminated. Sounds OK, right? But that's followed by: by inserting `, and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner,' after `relating to such article';
So, they can arbitrarily say, well, if x food item can be contaminated, than so can Y, so we're going to inspect them both.
And then we have this paragraph: `(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN- If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation of appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person, at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
WHAT? Since when does FOOD cause death? Do they know something we don't know? Or are they going to determine that mean raises your cholesterol, and therefore it causes and adverse affect on humans, and outlaw it?
And apparently when food facilities register (I guess that means for a license to sell food?) they will have to include a statement that they will let the government inspect their facility basically anytime they want to. Who is to say what's reasonable? The government? Or do the facility owners get to say, that's not convenient for me? We've seen how the government works...you can't say it's not convenient, but they can.
If you are deemed as having food that can cause serious injury or death, they can suspend your operations. And get this: EFFECT OF SUSPENSION- If the registration of a facility is suspended under this subsection, no person shall import or export food into the United States from such facility, offer to import or export food into the United States from such facility, or otherwise introduce food from such facility into interstate or intrastate commerce in the United States.
So, they are going to have total control over our food supply.
And they are redefining (just as I said they would) what a food facility is: RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The Secretary shall amend the definition of the term `retail food establishment' in section in 1.227(b)(11) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations to clarify that, in determining the primary function of an establishment or a retail food establishment under such section, the sale of food products directly to consumers by such establishment and the sale of food directly to consumers by such retail food establishment include--
So, if you have your own garden, make sure you GIVE away your vegetables or you could fall into this category. Don't grow vegetables to get a little extra money.
Here are their definitions of a retail food establishment:
A) the sale of such food products or food directly to consumers by such establishment at a roadside stand or farmers' market where such stand or market is located other than where the food was manufactured or processed;
(B) the sale and distribution of such food through a community supported agriculture program; and
(C) the sale and distribution of such food at any other such direct sales platform as determined by the Secretary.
See? It could be your little garden plot. If you have a roadside stand, it has to be on your property. Way out in the country? How much business will you get?
And then they even attack WHERE and WHAT CONDITIONS there are in place for the growing of food: include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, packing, and storage operations, science-based minimum standards related to soil amendments, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animals in the growing area, and water;
They get to determine our soil quality? Is everything going to go organic? Do you know who expensive organic is compared to regular. I would love to HAVE organic, but I can't afford most of it.
And then there's this little paragraph: IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the close of the comment period for the proposed rule making under subsection (a), the Secretary shall adopt a final regulation to provide for minimum science-based standards for those types of fruits and vegetables, including specific mixes or categories of fruits or vegetables, that are raw agricultural commodities, based on known safety risks, which may include a history of foodborne illness outbreaks.
Ever wonder why they had so many ecoli outbreaks with different foods? Perhaps they were setting up a track record of the foods they wanted to "regulate?" They now have a history of contamination for what? Spinach that I know of, lettuce, hamburgers.
And there will be variances allowed: REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES- A State or foreign country from which food is imported into the United States may in writing request a variance from the Secretary.
Note that it says State ... from which food is imported... That doesn't mean one of our states.
And how is this all being paid for? They will establish fees for reinspecting your facility. They don't say what those fees will be, but I'll bet you my last dollar that if they get to collect a fee for "reinspection," there will be a LOT of facilities determined to be a hazard, just so they can reinspect. And if you don't pay your fees? COLLECTION OF UNPAID FEES- In any case where the Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under this section within 30 days after it is due, such fee shall be treated as a claim of the United States Government subject to provisions of subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
Is this like owing to the IRS? And does this mean they are going to hire more IRS agents to do the collecting?
And apparently they are going to treat all food like a drug: (1) AUTHORITY FOR EXPORT CERTIFICATIONS FOR FOOD, INCLUDING ANIMAL FEED- Section 801(e)(4)(A) (21 U.S.C. 381(e)(4)(A)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking `a drug' and inserting `a food, drug';
(B) in clause (i) by striking `exported drug' and inserting `exported food, drug'; and
(C) in clause (ii) by striking `the drug' each place it appears and inserting `the food, drug'.
They are also going to be able to regulate more all the food that goes to our schools. Now while this may sound good on the surface, remember Cass Susstein. He doesn't want anyone to eat meat. Does this mean eventually, they will determine that meat is bad for our children, and just not serve it at school? I suggest home schooling. If they can determine that meat is bad, they can not allow sack lunches with meat in it either.
And I love this one:
`(1) IDENTIFICATION- The Secretary shall identify high-risk facilities and shall allocate resources to inspect facilities according to the known safety risks of the facilities, which shall be based on the following factors:
`(A) The known safety risks of the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility.
`(B) The compliance history of a facility, including with regard to food recalls, outbreaks of foodborne illness, and violations of food safety standards.
`(C) The rigor and effectiveness of the facility's hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls.
`(D) Whether the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility meets the criteria for priority under section 801(h)(1).
`(E) Whether the food or the facility that manufactured, processed, packed, or held such food has received a certification as described in section 801(q) or 806, as appropriate.
`(F) Any other criteria deemed necessary and appropriate by the Secretary for purposes of allocating inspection resources.
So, they can profile the food industry, but not the airplane industry?
Knowing that this administration is filled with Marxists/Communists ... Oops, was I supposed to use the term Democratic Socialist? Anyway, knowing this, I can foresee a time when they would list a majority of Domestic food facilities as unhealthy so we would have no choice but to import all our food. This would be a great way to redistribute wealth. And according to this document, foreign facilities can apply to not be under it's authority. Wow, kind of like the Climate change thing. Foreign countries may not be under the authority of any climate change bill that's world wide, because it would unduly affect their economy. Yea, right.
First off, most people skip the definitions, but I've learned that's where they get you. They can redefine something that you THOUGHT you knew the definition of. The first thing I run into is this: They're talking about inspecting records, and they want the right to inspect any food that could be contaminated. Sounds OK, right? But that's followed by: by inserting `, and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner,' after `relating to such article';
So, they can arbitrarily say, well, if x food item can be contaminated, than so can Y, so we're going to inspect them both.
And then we have this paragraph: `(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN- If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation of appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person, at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
WHAT? Since when does FOOD cause death? Do they know something we don't know? Or are they going to determine that mean raises your cholesterol, and therefore it causes and adverse affect on humans, and outlaw it?
And apparently when food facilities register (I guess that means for a license to sell food?) they will have to include a statement that they will let the government inspect their facility basically anytime they want to. Who is to say what's reasonable? The government? Or do the facility owners get to say, that's not convenient for me? We've seen how the government works...you can't say it's not convenient, but they can.
If you are deemed as having food that can cause serious injury or death, they can suspend your operations. And get this: EFFECT OF SUSPENSION- If the registration of a facility is suspended under this subsection, no person shall import or export food into the United States from such facility, offer to import or export food into the United States from such facility, or otherwise introduce food from such facility into interstate or intrastate commerce in the United States.
So, they are going to have total control over our food supply.
And they are redefining (just as I said they would) what a food facility is: RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The Secretary shall amend the definition of the term `retail food establishment' in section in 1.227(b)(11) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations to clarify that, in determining the primary function of an establishment or a retail food establishment under such section, the sale of food products directly to consumers by such establishment and the sale of food directly to consumers by such retail food establishment include--
So, if you have your own garden, make sure you GIVE away your vegetables or you could fall into this category. Don't grow vegetables to get a little extra money.
Here are their definitions of a retail food establishment:
A) the sale of such food products or food directly to consumers by such establishment at a roadside stand or farmers' market where such stand or market is located other than where the food was manufactured or processed;
(B) the sale and distribution of such food through a community supported agriculture program; and
(C) the sale and distribution of such food at any other such direct sales platform as determined by the Secretary.
See? It could be your little garden plot. If you have a roadside stand, it has to be on your property. Way out in the country? How much business will you get?
And then they even attack WHERE and WHAT CONDITIONS there are in place for the growing of food: include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, packing, and storage operations, science-based minimum standards related to soil amendments, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animals in the growing area, and water;
They get to determine our soil quality? Is everything going to go organic? Do you know who expensive organic is compared to regular. I would love to HAVE organic, but I can't afford most of it.
And then there's this little paragraph: IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the close of the comment period for the proposed rule making under subsection (a), the Secretary shall adopt a final regulation to provide for minimum science-based standards for those types of fruits and vegetables, including specific mixes or categories of fruits or vegetables, that are raw agricultural commodities, based on known safety risks, which may include a history of foodborne illness outbreaks.
Ever wonder why they had so many ecoli outbreaks with different foods? Perhaps they were setting up a track record of the foods they wanted to "regulate?" They now have a history of contamination for what? Spinach that I know of, lettuce, hamburgers.
And there will be variances allowed: REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES- A State or foreign country from which food is imported into the United States may in writing request a variance from the Secretary.
Note that it says State ... from which food is imported... That doesn't mean one of our states.
And how is this all being paid for? They will establish fees for reinspecting your facility. They don't say what those fees will be, but I'll bet you my last dollar that if they get to collect a fee for "reinspection," there will be a LOT of facilities determined to be a hazard, just so they can reinspect. And if you don't pay your fees? COLLECTION OF UNPAID FEES- In any case where the Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under this section within 30 days after it is due, such fee shall be treated as a claim of the United States Government subject to provisions of subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
Is this like owing to the IRS? And does this mean they are going to hire more IRS agents to do the collecting?
And apparently they are going to treat all food like a drug: (1) AUTHORITY FOR EXPORT CERTIFICATIONS FOR FOOD, INCLUDING ANIMAL FEED- Section 801(e)(4)(A) (21 U.S.C. 381(e)(4)(A)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking `a drug' and inserting `a food, drug';
(B) in clause (i) by striking `exported drug' and inserting `exported food, drug'; and
(C) in clause (ii) by striking `the drug' each place it appears and inserting `the food, drug'.
They are also going to be able to regulate more all the food that goes to our schools. Now while this may sound good on the surface, remember Cass Susstein. He doesn't want anyone to eat meat. Does this mean eventually, they will determine that meat is bad for our children, and just not serve it at school? I suggest home schooling. If they can determine that meat is bad, they can not allow sack lunches with meat in it either.
And I love this one:
`(1) IDENTIFICATION- The Secretary shall identify high-risk facilities and shall allocate resources to inspect facilities according to the known safety risks of the facilities, which shall be based on the following factors:
`(A) The known safety risks of the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility.
`(B) The compliance history of a facility, including with regard to food recalls, outbreaks of foodborne illness, and violations of food safety standards.
`(C) The rigor and effectiveness of the facility's hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls.
`(D) Whether the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility meets the criteria for priority under section 801(h)(1).
`(E) Whether the food or the facility that manufactured, processed, packed, or held such food has received a certification as described in section 801(q) or 806, as appropriate.
`(F) Any other criteria deemed necessary and appropriate by the Secretary for purposes of allocating inspection resources.
So, they can profile the food industry, but not the airplane industry?
Knowing that this administration is filled with Marxists/Communists ... Oops, was I supposed to use the term Democratic Socialist? Anyway, knowing this, I can foresee a time when they would list a majority of Domestic food facilities as unhealthy so we would have no choice but to import all our food. This would be a great way to redistribute wealth. And according to this document, foreign facilities can apply to not be under it's authority. Wow, kind of like the Climate change thing. Foreign countries may not be under the authority of any climate change bill that's world wide, because it would unduly affect their economy. Yea, right.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Cap and Tax being pushed through
We as a country have seen the science of global warming debunked. The only people who still cling to it are the radical left. There are even environmentalists coming out and saying that even if we do everything they ask us to do, everyone on the planet, it will have no difference on planet Earth. There are warming and cooling periods. I personally remember back in the 1980's, may late 70's that it was global cooling. Everyone was afraid we would have another ice age if something wasn't done about it immediately. Our ozone layer was being depleted and we were losing all the heat from the Earth. The ice caps were going to get huge, and the earth would wobble and there would be a catastrophe the size of Noah's flood. Our poles would switch to the equator. And they call Glenn Beck a harbinger of doom.
Well, there's a rumor coming out of Washington, DC that President Obama is going to push through Cap and Tax during the lame duck session. He will no longer have a majority (in other words, the Republicans and possibly even some of the new Democrats coming in, aren't on his boat and can't be blocked). If you don't think they would push something through against the American people, and without the science to back it up, remember health care? Every analyst said it would cost more than it would give. They said, no it will save the country money. NOW, people are coming forward and saying how much it will cost them. Most dissenters are shut down (like McDonald's), or ridiculed.
Glenn Beck did an article on this and exposed the ins and outs of this hoax. The Obama cronies stand to make a fortune so why would they give it up just because the science is faulty?
Here's Glenn Beck's argument. The first part is a bit boring, but hang in there and read it. He ties it all together in the end.
This is what Glenn Beck found out when he followed the money on the Climate Bill, now we get it from other sources.
This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It's not hope and change, it is money.
I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. (It's definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).
A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below) but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank's executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank's employees had donated money to Obama's Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.
ShoreBank survived and invested in many "green" businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama's speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests.
Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean's family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.
This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded.
Under Obama's new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and "reduce" their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.
Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the "banking arm" of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.
So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.
One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.
Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama's late mother. Obama's mother worked on foreign MICRO -LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.
Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.
The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama's White House transition team.
When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he "funneled" thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.
Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.
(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko's company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).
Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.
Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for "green" projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.
Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.
Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).
Interesting? And now the closing...
Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.
Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will "sell" this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.
But, here's the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).
If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.
But don't forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.
It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars just in the first year. Of course, Obama's "commissions" will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.
Some financial experts think this will be the largest "scam" or "legal heist" in world history. Obama's cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff's fraud look like penny ante stuff.
Well, there's a rumor coming out of Washington, DC that President Obama is going to push through Cap and Tax during the lame duck session. He will no longer have a majority (in other words, the Republicans and possibly even some of the new Democrats coming in, aren't on his boat and can't be blocked). If you don't think they would push something through against the American people, and without the science to back it up, remember health care? Every analyst said it would cost more than it would give. They said, no it will save the country money. NOW, people are coming forward and saying how much it will cost them. Most dissenters are shut down (like McDonald's), or ridiculed.
Glenn Beck did an article on this and exposed the ins and outs of this hoax. The Obama cronies stand to make a fortune so why would they give it up just because the science is faulty?
Here's Glenn Beck's argument. The first part is a bit boring, but hang in there and read it. He ties it all together in the end.
This is what Glenn Beck found out when he followed the money on the Climate Bill, now we get it from other sources.
This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It's not hope and change, it is money.
I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. (It's definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).
A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below) but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank's executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank's employees had donated money to Obama's Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.
ShoreBank survived and invested in many "green" businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama's speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests.
Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean's family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.
This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded.
Under Obama's new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and "reduce" their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.
Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the "banking arm" of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.
So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.
One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.
Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama's late mother. Obama's mother worked on foreign MICRO -LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.
Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.
The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama's White House transition team.
When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he "funneled" thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.
Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.
(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko's company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).
Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.
Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for "green" projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.
Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.
Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).
Interesting? And now the closing...
Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.
Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will "sell" this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.
But, here's the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).
If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.
But don't forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.
It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars just in the first year. Of course, Obama's "commissions" will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.
Some financial experts think this will be the largest "scam" or "legal heist" in world history. Obama's cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff's fraud look like penny ante stuff.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Suggestions for all Politcal officials
In case you missed Glenn Beck, he had some really good suggestions for the pay and benefits of our elected officials. I don't have the transcript, but I did DVR that program.
An average soldier (specialist) comes out of the Army after being paid $22,676 a year. The average American makes $50,462. The average Federal Employee makes $74,403. Members of Congress make $174,000 (not an average, that's their base pay.)
He goes on to say that the soldier, who sits on the wall defending America so she can have free speech, etc., makes the least amount. He does get some benefits, but not like Congress. The average American doesn't get the benefits of Congress, either. The Federal employee has a lot of benefits. He talks about the Average American being the master of Congress, who "serves," because it's not really a job, they say, they serve. Why is the master making 1/3 of what Congress makes? He then points out some Congressional leaders who came out of Congress making so much more than when they went in.
Harry Reid went in to the Senate was worth $1.8 million (after serving in the house some). Two years ago, he was worth $4.6 million. Nancy Pelosi, after serving just two years in Congress, had an estimated worth of $7.5 million and today she's worth $21.7 million. How does that happen? Makes me think I should run for office, and all my financial problems will be over.
That's not how it was with our founding fathers. Some did it for NOTHING...no pay...they kept their jobs and only met in congress when something needed doing.
BUT, Glenn has a solution, too, and I love it. He suggests that Congress shall not be paid more than the soldier is paid. And that goes for the benefits as well. Congress gets so much more benefits than the soldier. How about Congress has to go to the VA Hospital for their care? The soldier makes about 13% of what a Congressman makes. They are in the service of their country. Congress says they need to keep two homes. He has a solution for that, too. Build them barracks to live in while they're in Congress. I can tell you barracks are not that bad. I lived in a barracks for almost 3 years (the last year I lived with my boyfriend off base, who became my husband).
People in Federal government should not make more than the Average American. And they should have the same benefits.
We need to get behind this. Let me state it again in summary.
Congressmen shall not be paid more than the average soldier. Congressman shall have the same medical benefits as the average soldier.
Federal employees shall not make more than the average American, with the same benefits.
He says one of two things will happen. Either Congress will raise the wage of the soldier as well as increasing the conditions in the VA Hospitals, or cut their own wages. He said he'd like to see a combination of the two. I agree, because I've heard horror stories about the VA. I know an uncle who had to wait something like 3 months for HEART SURGERY! I don't remember the time, but I remember thinking, wow, he could be dead by then. I know that I had breast cancer surgery ONE MONTH after being diagnosed on an Air Force base. In that time, my tumor had doubled in size. My mom got it a week later in a civilian setting. And that was including the time to diagnose it. I didn't actually include that. I went to the doctor the week after Thanksgiving, and had surgery on January 11th. I got good care, it just wasn't timely.
I wonder how much better Federal Employees would treat us if they only made what the Average American makes? And I guess I'm below average, because we have to include a military retirement to get to that $50,000 mark. I just did the math, and apparently the average American makes $26 an hour. I think that's plenty for a Federal employee, who according to the average currently makes almost $39 an hour. And they get a much better pension than the average American. There wouldn't be as many people flocking to government jobs, I know that. That in and of itself would shrink government. They wouldn't be able to afford to staff so many people if we became their master again.
Sound like a winner of an idea.
An average soldier (specialist) comes out of the Army after being paid $22,676 a year. The average American makes $50,462. The average Federal Employee makes $74,403. Members of Congress make $174,000 (not an average, that's their base pay.)
He goes on to say that the soldier, who sits on the wall defending America so she can have free speech, etc., makes the least amount. He does get some benefits, but not like Congress. The average American doesn't get the benefits of Congress, either. The Federal employee has a lot of benefits. He talks about the Average American being the master of Congress, who "serves," because it's not really a job, they say, they serve. Why is the master making 1/3 of what Congress makes? He then points out some Congressional leaders who came out of Congress making so much more than when they went in.
Harry Reid went in to the Senate was worth $1.8 million (after serving in the house some). Two years ago, he was worth $4.6 million. Nancy Pelosi, after serving just two years in Congress, had an estimated worth of $7.5 million and today she's worth $21.7 million. How does that happen? Makes me think I should run for office, and all my financial problems will be over.
That's not how it was with our founding fathers. Some did it for NOTHING...no pay...they kept their jobs and only met in congress when something needed doing.
BUT, Glenn has a solution, too, and I love it. He suggests that Congress shall not be paid more than the soldier is paid. And that goes for the benefits as well. Congress gets so much more benefits than the soldier. How about Congress has to go to the VA Hospital for their care? The soldier makes about 13% of what a Congressman makes. They are in the service of their country. Congress says they need to keep two homes. He has a solution for that, too. Build them barracks to live in while they're in Congress. I can tell you barracks are not that bad. I lived in a barracks for almost 3 years (the last year I lived with my boyfriend off base, who became my husband).
People in Federal government should not make more than the Average American. And they should have the same benefits.
We need to get behind this. Let me state it again in summary.
Congressmen shall not be paid more than the average soldier. Congressman shall have the same medical benefits as the average soldier.
Federal employees shall not make more than the average American, with the same benefits.
He says one of two things will happen. Either Congress will raise the wage of the soldier as well as increasing the conditions in the VA Hospitals, or cut their own wages. He said he'd like to see a combination of the two. I agree, because I've heard horror stories about the VA. I know an uncle who had to wait something like 3 months for HEART SURGERY! I don't remember the time, but I remember thinking, wow, he could be dead by then. I know that I had breast cancer surgery ONE MONTH after being diagnosed on an Air Force base. In that time, my tumor had doubled in size. My mom got it a week later in a civilian setting. And that was including the time to diagnose it. I didn't actually include that. I went to the doctor the week after Thanksgiving, and had surgery on January 11th. I got good care, it just wasn't timely.
I wonder how much better Federal Employees would treat us if they only made what the Average American makes? And I guess I'm below average, because we have to include a military retirement to get to that $50,000 mark. I just did the math, and apparently the average American makes $26 an hour. I think that's plenty for a Federal employee, who according to the average currently makes almost $39 an hour. And they get a much better pension than the average American. There wouldn't be as many people flocking to government jobs, I know that. That in and of itself would shrink government. They wouldn't be able to afford to staff so many people if we became their master again.
Sound like a winner of an idea.
A Case for Smaller Government
I recently had a run-in with large government and wanted to share it.
I don't know how taxes (property taxes, at least) are run in other states. Frankly, I didn't know how they went in my former state of Illinois. I've always had them escrowed out of my mortgage, and didn't need to bother with it. We recently refinanced our VA Loan, dropping from 5% to a 3% Hybrid loan. So, now I'm getting all the taxes sent to me. I live in Garland, Texas. We get taxes from City of Garland, County of Dallas and the Garland Independent School District. In Texas we have a "Homestead exemption" on the house you actually live in. It's quite large. I suppose it's aimed at penalizing those who have more than one home. Dallas is very "Progressive." We also have an exemption for being over 65 years of age.
Well, for some reason they never asked for my homestead, until the previous owners filed that he had died, and the house was sold. Then they sent me a form to claim homestead. I filled it out, and sent it in. That's when they hit me with back taxes owed. Since the previous owner died in November 2008, and we didn't buy the house until April, 2009, they removed the homestead exemption for the whole year of 2009. I owed taxes (from the 3 different places that charge me taxes) to the tune of $1693.24.
I got 2 different statements on one of them, with a penalty date of November 1st on one, and December 1st on the second one sent. I was confused, so I called to see which one was right. It was December 1st, they told me. Well, this was the first two places totaling $1172.26. I happened to have it because we refinanced and were able to skip a mortgage payment. I paid it on November 3rd. I got a notice yesterday (November 12) that the City of Garland was late, and I didn't send enough. They fined me $193.67 and I got the last one (County of Dallas) for $520.98. So now, I owe $714.65 on top of the $1172.26 I've already paid. All this because no one actually lived here on January 1, 2009. It doesn't matter that it's my homestead for the whole time I lived here, and that when ANYONE was living here it was a homestead. It was never rented, never occupied except by me that year. I may wait until January 1st to pay the late charges, because they will only be $196.75. Not a lot of difference, and time to build up that kind of money. I was told they only give you 21 days when they're back taxes. So, even for something not your fault, you only have 21 days to come up with $1886.91. I don't know about most people, but that puts me in dire straights. I don't have that kind of cash lying around. If we hadn't refinanced, we wouldn't have had the first part.
I think it's all designed to repossess houses. Don't pay your back taxes? We're coming to get your house. The government has gotten too big. We as citizens don't have any power anymore. They are supposed to be serving us. I can see if I had just neglected to pay my taxes, but they have it on record that my taxes were paid. They refigured and tell me I owe more. I've been living in this house for almost 2 years, and NOW you want to redo the homestead exemption? They have quite a racket going.
I have no alternative but to trust that the Lord will provide. I called my new mortgage company, and 2010 taxes are taken care of out of escrow (unless they're a lot higher than they should be - we did have to remove the over 65 exemption because we're younger than that). So, hopefully the check that comes back from my previous escrow account will cover these AFTER I write the checks for them. I still haven't gotten that check to know what it is.
Even our local government has outgrown the American People. I hope this election cycle does indeed change things. By the way, I make (from my husband's salary AND his Navy retirement together) in the $50,000-55,000 range. Without military retirement, we'd be making in the $30,000-35,000 range. Just think, you could be next.
Lori Ann Smith
I don't know how taxes (property taxes, at least) are run in other states. Frankly, I didn't know how they went in my former state of Illinois. I've always had them escrowed out of my mortgage, and didn't need to bother with it. We recently refinanced our VA Loan, dropping from 5% to a 3% Hybrid loan. So, now I'm getting all the taxes sent to me. I live in Garland, Texas. We get taxes from City of Garland, County of Dallas and the Garland Independent School District. In Texas we have a "Homestead exemption" on the house you actually live in. It's quite large. I suppose it's aimed at penalizing those who have more than one home. Dallas is very "Progressive." We also have an exemption for being over 65 years of age.
Well, for some reason they never asked for my homestead, until the previous owners filed that he had died, and the house was sold. Then they sent me a form to claim homestead. I filled it out, and sent it in. That's when they hit me with back taxes owed. Since the previous owner died in November 2008, and we didn't buy the house until April, 2009, they removed the homestead exemption for the whole year of 2009. I owed taxes (from the 3 different places that charge me taxes) to the tune of $1693.24.
I got 2 different statements on one of them, with a penalty date of November 1st on one, and December 1st on the second one sent. I was confused, so I called to see which one was right. It was December 1st, they told me. Well, this was the first two places totaling $1172.26. I happened to have it because we refinanced and were able to skip a mortgage payment. I paid it on November 3rd. I got a notice yesterday (November 12) that the City of Garland was late, and I didn't send enough. They fined me $193.67 and I got the last one (County of Dallas) for $520.98. So now, I owe $714.65 on top of the $1172.26 I've already paid. All this because no one actually lived here on January 1, 2009. It doesn't matter that it's my homestead for the whole time I lived here, and that when ANYONE was living here it was a homestead. It was never rented, never occupied except by me that year. I may wait until January 1st to pay the late charges, because they will only be $196.75. Not a lot of difference, and time to build up that kind of money. I was told they only give you 21 days when they're back taxes. So, even for something not your fault, you only have 21 days to come up with $1886.91. I don't know about most people, but that puts me in dire straights. I don't have that kind of cash lying around. If we hadn't refinanced, we wouldn't have had the first part.
I think it's all designed to repossess houses. Don't pay your back taxes? We're coming to get your house. The government has gotten too big. We as citizens don't have any power anymore. They are supposed to be serving us. I can see if I had just neglected to pay my taxes, but they have it on record that my taxes were paid. They refigured and tell me I owe more. I've been living in this house for almost 2 years, and NOW you want to redo the homestead exemption? They have quite a racket going.
I have no alternative but to trust that the Lord will provide. I called my new mortgage company, and 2010 taxes are taken care of out of escrow (unless they're a lot higher than they should be - we did have to remove the over 65 exemption because we're younger than that). So, hopefully the check that comes back from my previous escrow account will cover these AFTER I write the checks for them. I still haven't gotten that check to know what it is.
Even our local government has outgrown the American People. I hope this election cycle does indeed change things. By the way, I make (from my husband's salary AND his Navy retirement together) in the $50,000-55,000 range. Without military retirement, we'd be making in the $30,000-35,000 range. Just think, you could be next.
Lori Ann Smith
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend?
I recently watched a long You Tube video of the jet streams http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9rXydMmfw&feature=player_embedded
I'll summarize: Remember just a few years ago (they say two, but I say longer, even into the Bush administration) the con-trails of regular jets, when you look up in the skies? They are relatively small. They follow the jets a short distance and depending on whether it's a sunny day or cloudy dissipate fairly fast. That's because they're made up of ice crystals. The jet is so high up that the water vapor coming out of the jets forms ice crystals. From the surface, it makes a cloud-looking stream of stuff.
Well, now they are spraying intentionally, stuff out the back that doesn't go away. It forms into these really wide jet stream trails that stretch from horizon to horizon and don't go away very quickly, sometimes staying the whole day.
Well, there are 7 parts to this video. I got through 4. They held a conference with these environmental wackos. Now, I'm not talking about the average guy on the street who wants to recycle aluminum cans and use reusable water bottles instead of buying water bottles to save plastic. I'm not talking about the average Joe who wants to save the planet by planting a tree. These are the elites who frankly, have a different agenda all together. They discussed, what if they got a plane to throw out either aluminum chaff (like the kind jets use to throw a missile off target when being pursued)? It would reflect the sun's light back into outer space and therefore cool the earth. Better yet, why don't we use aluminum oxide? It's dust like and would stay up in the stratosphere longer before settling down to earth. They were specifically asked about the human toll. I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but it was to the effect that we have to be very careful here. We've done the research, we just haven't published it. There's a difference between health risks and something or other. In other words, he believed that if the people knew what it did to them they would be against it, so they aren't going to publish their results.
You can look up on line what aluminum poisoning does to your system. It's a bad thing. There is no chalation method to remove aluminium from the body. Once it's there, it's there. It's the leading cause of Alzheimer's. They claim it's from drinking out of aluminum cans. Yeah, right. I believe the aluminum in that can leached out into my drink. And the aluminum in all my vegetable cans?
Further in another one of the videos, they have a gardener on. I know this is a fact, because I garden. You need slightly acidic soil to raise food crops. Where ever they're spraying this aluminum oxide (and barium, by the way) it's making the soil neutral. It's killing the trees. Why would someone interested in global warming, kill the trees? They obviously have a different agenda. I'm with the guy on the video, I'm not going to guess what it is. It could be population control, It could be just control. It doesn't matter. My whole point is, we, the conservatives need to get with the tree huggers (the honest ones) and fight against these elites.
Don't you people understand? We shouldn't be fighting against each other. That's what they want. I'll be one of the first on my side to admit that Bush did it too. I know I remember these trails starting more than 2 years ago. I know that George W. was for the super highway all the way from Mexico to Canada. That made me made even back when I wasn't politically awake. I remember my MIL saying there's no way he'd be for that. It's one-world government stuff. The elite either know something they aren't telling us, or they're manipulating us into an end they want. We don't have to be manipulated. I hate being manipulated. I'd rather make friends with people than let someone who REALLY wants to destroy the planet win. They don't care about people, trees or animals.
I don't know if the honest Joe tree hugger puts animal/plant life above humans or not. I do know that the Bible tells us to take care of the earth...we're supposed to be stewards of what we were given. That means those who blatantly destroy are bad in our eyes, too. We won't necessarily move a community for the spotted owl, but we may not build there if we can't move them to another place. I don't think God would have made a species that couldn't be moved.
So, let's really get under the skin of the elites, and unite against them!
Lori Ann Smith
I'll summarize: Remember just a few years ago (they say two, but I say longer, even into the Bush administration) the con-trails of regular jets, when you look up in the skies? They are relatively small. They follow the jets a short distance and depending on whether it's a sunny day or cloudy dissipate fairly fast. That's because they're made up of ice crystals. The jet is so high up that the water vapor coming out of the jets forms ice crystals. From the surface, it makes a cloud-looking stream of stuff.
Well, now they are spraying intentionally, stuff out the back that doesn't go away. It forms into these really wide jet stream trails that stretch from horizon to horizon and don't go away very quickly, sometimes staying the whole day.
Well, there are 7 parts to this video. I got through 4. They held a conference with these environmental wackos. Now, I'm not talking about the average guy on the street who wants to recycle aluminum cans and use reusable water bottles instead of buying water bottles to save plastic. I'm not talking about the average Joe who wants to save the planet by planting a tree. These are the elites who frankly, have a different agenda all together. They discussed, what if they got a plane to throw out either aluminum chaff (like the kind jets use to throw a missile off target when being pursued)? It would reflect the sun's light back into outer space and therefore cool the earth. Better yet, why don't we use aluminum oxide? It's dust like and would stay up in the stratosphere longer before settling down to earth. They were specifically asked about the human toll. I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but it was to the effect that we have to be very careful here. We've done the research, we just haven't published it. There's a difference between health risks and something or other. In other words, he believed that if the people knew what it did to them they would be against it, so they aren't going to publish their results.
You can look up on line what aluminum poisoning does to your system. It's a bad thing. There is no chalation method to remove aluminium from the body. Once it's there, it's there. It's the leading cause of Alzheimer's. They claim it's from drinking out of aluminum cans. Yeah, right. I believe the aluminum in that can leached out into my drink. And the aluminum in all my vegetable cans?
Further in another one of the videos, they have a gardener on. I know this is a fact, because I garden. You need slightly acidic soil to raise food crops. Where ever they're spraying this aluminum oxide (and barium, by the way) it's making the soil neutral. It's killing the trees. Why would someone interested in global warming, kill the trees? They obviously have a different agenda. I'm with the guy on the video, I'm not going to guess what it is. It could be population control, It could be just control. It doesn't matter. My whole point is, we, the conservatives need to get with the tree huggers (the honest ones) and fight against these elites.
Don't you people understand? We shouldn't be fighting against each other. That's what they want. I'll be one of the first on my side to admit that Bush did it too. I know I remember these trails starting more than 2 years ago. I know that George W. was for the super highway all the way from Mexico to Canada. That made me made even back when I wasn't politically awake. I remember my MIL saying there's no way he'd be for that. It's one-world government stuff. The elite either know something they aren't telling us, or they're manipulating us into an end they want. We don't have to be manipulated. I hate being manipulated. I'd rather make friends with people than let someone who REALLY wants to destroy the planet win. They don't care about people, trees or animals.
I don't know if the honest Joe tree hugger puts animal/plant life above humans or not. I do know that the Bible tells us to take care of the earth...we're supposed to be stewards of what we were given. That means those who blatantly destroy are bad in our eyes, too. We won't necessarily move a community for the spotted owl, but we may not build there if we can't move them to another place. I don't think God would have made a species that couldn't be moved.
So, let's really get under the skin of the elites, and unite against them!
Lori Ann Smith
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The American Flag - Does Fringe Make a Difference?
I have to admit, I don't really pay that much attention to the various flags. I see they're American, but I don't notice they have fringe on them. They've sneaked that one in on me. Apparently they're in all the courts in the land now except a court in Washington, DC. Do you know what the yellow fringe means? I didn't. I had to research it.
Here is the regulation for our flag. I had to go back to 1818. This is from an Act of April 4, 1818, Chapter 34 (3 Stat, 415), reenacted as sections 1791 and 1792 of the revised statutes of the United States. Section 1791 provides that, " the flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white, and the union of the flag shall be thirty-seven stars, white in blue field." Section 1792 provides that "on the admission of a new State into the union one star shall be added to the union of the flag., and such addition shall take effect on the fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission."
It doesn't say anything about a gold fringe.Taken from 34 Opin Attorney General, pg 34, "The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army regulations, No. 260-10 The yellow fringed flag is therefore , a "Military Flag"." The Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 ½ inches wide. Such flags are flown indoors, only in military courtrooms. The Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations (United States Army Regulations, AR 840-10, 1 October 1979).
So that means that whenever you enter into a civilian court, you are actually submitting to a court martial. Does that make it clear why President Obama had the terrorists tried by a civilian court while he tried Major Hasan by the Military? There's no difference. They're both basically the military.
But this actually goes deeper than that. Look at the flag behind the President of the United States. It has gold fringe on it, too. That means we are considered under martial law. I tried to go back and see when we got that flag. George W. Bush's flag had the gold fringe. I can't tell from the pictures I've seen if George H. W. Bush. And it took a lot of looking, but I finally found that Bill Clinton had gold fringe on his flag, so I guess it started with him. But George W. could have stopped it. Since President Obama got elected, I've revised my opinion on the Bush's. They were good for our country, but they were still progressives. They were headed in the same place Obama wants to go, they just would have gotten us there much slower. Or at least George W. would have.
From what I've found, "Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag," a military flag does result in jurisdictional implications when flown (Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 Ill. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 Am)." But, that said, martial law is carried out in individual cases and if we go to war.
What happens if President Obama determines that the Tea Party is such a threat that we are about to have another Civil War? Is it possible that they (meaning the establishment of both parties) have been working at this for years).
So, to sum this up, according to the end of the land, our courts are ruled by admiralty law, not the constitution. That means when ever you walk into a court room, you give up your rights given to you in the constitution. The judge can basically rule however he wants to...sound familiar? So you step onto their "ship" (courtroom) and they become the captain of that ship and can rule however they please. Have we seen that happen before? Laws being overturned by judges? The will of the people being ignored because a judge said so?
So what's wrong with an Admiralty court? For one thing, they use presumed guilty until proven innocent. That's the opposite of our judicial system. They also use heresy as evidence. That means you can be convicted just because someone said so. So If I had it out for my neighbor because his fence wasn't high enough, I could lie and get him in trouble. If the government didn't like my politics, they could trump up charges and put me away. Are you getting nervous yet? They can also take land away. You think eminent domain was bad. They don't need to have a common good. They can say you did something bad and take your house. They can say so-and-so said you were a drug dealer, or a threat to national security, so we're taking your house.
There are so many workings in government that we aren't told of. I discovered today that the Post Office has to give a large chunk of money to Congress. No wonder they're going broke and our stamps keep going up. Why are they paying Congress? They should be a self-supporting entity. Congress doesn't deliver the mail. They don't even monitor the Postal Service. And they used to pay disabled (due to injury) workers to sit at home. So they got to sit at home and do nothing and collect a full pay check. And this is the government we want to have martial law over us?
But, they sneak in and try to control us every way they can. We have to be ever vigilant. The founding fathers were concerned that we would fall into this trap and proof can be found in the 5th Amendment which states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of Law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
And what kind of law is it talking about when it says due process of law?
That answer can be found in the 7th amendment:
It says, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the Right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury shall be reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law."
That's pretty plain. NO ADMIRALTY LAW! That's common law. But if we walk into court, we're subjecting to their rule. I don't have an answer as to what to do. Make them change their flag? I don't think that would go over very well. Maybe if enough of us refuse to have our cases heard until they have a non-tasselled flag displayed, they'll listen. Maybe they'll realize we've caught on.
Here is the regulation for our flag. I had to go back to 1818. This is from an Act of April 4, 1818, Chapter 34 (3 Stat, 415), reenacted as sections 1791 and 1792 of the revised statutes of the United States. Section 1791 provides that, " the flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white, and the union of the flag shall be thirty-seven stars, white in blue field." Section 1792 provides that "on the admission of a new State into the union one star shall be added to the union of the flag., and such addition shall take effect on the fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission."
It doesn't say anything about a gold fringe.Taken from 34 Opin Attorney General, pg 34, "The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army regulations, No. 260-10 The yellow fringed flag is therefore , a "Military Flag"." The Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 ½ inches wide. Such flags are flown indoors, only in military courtrooms. The Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations (United States Army Regulations, AR 840-10, 1 October 1979).
So that means that whenever you enter into a civilian court, you are actually submitting to a court martial. Does that make it clear why President Obama had the terrorists tried by a civilian court while he tried Major Hasan by the Military? There's no difference. They're both basically the military.
But this actually goes deeper than that. Look at the flag behind the President of the United States. It has gold fringe on it, too. That means we are considered under martial law. I tried to go back and see when we got that flag. George W. Bush's flag had the gold fringe. I can't tell from the pictures I've seen if George H. W. Bush. And it took a lot of looking, but I finally found that Bill Clinton had gold fringe on his flag, so I guess it started with him. But George W. could have stopped it. Since President Obama got elected, I've revised my opinion on the Bush's. They were good for our country, but they were still progressives. They were headed in the same place Obama wants to go, they just would have gotten us there much slower. Or at least George W. would have.
From what I've found, "Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag," a military flag does result in jurisdictional implications when flown (Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 Ill. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 Am)." But, that said, martial law is carried out in individual cases and if we go to war.
What happens if President Obama determines that the Tea Party is such a threat that we are about to have another Civil War? Is it possible that they (meaning the establishment of both parties) have been working at this for years).
So, to sum this up, according to the end of the land, our courts are ruled by admiralty law, not the constitution. That means when ever you walk into a court room, you give up your rights given to you in the constitution. The judge can basically rule however he wants to...sound familiar? So you step onto their "ship" (courtroom) and they become the captain of that ship and can rule however they please. Have we seen that happen before? Laws being overturned by judges? The will of the people being ignored because a judge said so?
So what's wrong with an Admiralty court? For one thing, they use presumed guilty until proven innocent. That's the opposite of our judicial system. They also use heresy as evidence. That means you can be convicted just because someone said so. So If I had it out for my neighbor because his fence wasn't high enough, I could lie and get him in trouble. If the government didn't like my politics, they could trump up charges and put me away. Are you getting nervous yet? They can also take land away. You think eminent domain was bad. They don't need to have a common good. They can say you did something bad and take your house. They can say so-and-so said you were a drug dealer, or a threat to national security, so we're taking your house.
There are so many workings in government that we aren't told of. I discovered today that the Post Office has to give a large chunk of money to Congress. No wonder they're going broke and our stamps keep going up. Why are they paying Congress? They should be a self-supporting entity. Congress doesn't deliver the mail. They don't even monitor the Postal Service. And they used to pay disabled (due to injury) workers to sit at home. So they got to sit at home and do nothing and collect a full pay check. And this is the government we want to have martial law over us?
But, they sneak in and try to control us every way they can. We have to be ever vigilant. The founding fathers were concerned that we would fall into this trap and proof can be found in the 5th Amendment which states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of Law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
And what kind of law is it talking about when it says due process of law?
That answer can be found in the 7th amendment:
It says, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the Right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury shall be reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law."
That's pretty plain. NO ADMIRALTY LAW! That's common law. But if we walk into court, we're subjecting to their rule. I don't have an answer as to what to do. Make them change their flag? I don't think that would go over very well. Maybe if enough of us refuse to have our cases heard until they have a non-tasselled flag displayed, they'll listen. Maybe they'll realize we've caught on.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Tale of Two Families
I want you to take a walk through time with me with two families. They're basically the same make-up. Family of four, kids are 14-16 months apart, moms work outside the home for a while.
The first family starts out in 1971 having just left a Union job for a non-Union job. He buys a house that he expects will be the last house he ever buys. He knows he's looking, but he isn't REALLY looking. God smiles on him and he finds it on the way home from work. It sort of lands in his lap, just like the job did. He's disabled in a way. He lost his eye as a teenager, but he never let that get him down. He never considered it a disability. He worked hard and taught his kids to work hard. A job worth doing is worth doing right. Never start anything you don't plan on finishing.
So, this house is a 3 bedroom ranch, exactly what he wants. One bedroom is a bit small, but that's ok. They probably got a 6-7% loan. They watched people who got an adjustable loan as they soared to 19.5% They dug in and stayed in their house. They even, while the rates were low, got a loan for the 1/2 acre plot next to them so that they had an acre of land. They stayed in this house while their kids grew up and left. As a matter of fact, they are still in this house. Their house is now paid off and they don't have a mortgage.
The second family in the early 70's lived in a 2 bedroom house. The husband worked repairing appliances. He had several employers, and at one time was self-employed. They bought a 3 bedroom, well, actually a 2 bedroom that had been converted to a 3 bedroom. It had a 3rd bedroom in the basement. The wife liked to entertain so she converted the upstairs living room into a dining room (the kitchen wasn't big enough) and moved the family room to the basement. In the 80's they bought another house because they wanted to have foster children and this house didn't have enough bedrooms. They bought a larger 4 bedroom house with a swimming pool. Later, they decided that they didn't like living in Illinois, and God was calling them to Texas, so they moved again. They had already bought another house for rental property and still had the house with the converted basement. They sold all three houses and bought one house in Texas for cash. So, here they are, 25 years later, with a house they bought for cash, but really no better off. If they hadn't had the rental property, they would have been in trouble.
My dad, who worked at the same job for 25 years and was able to retire at the age of 59.5 and then use his stock to live off of until now (he's 78). My mom, who worked as a nurse and dad put her through LPN school so she could get a better job. She did take a break from working when we were very little.
We have an excuse for not following in my prents footsteps. My husband was active duty for 20 years and we had government housing. We rented her house (with the converted basement) for a year, then bought our first house. We lived there for almost 3 years before moving to Texas. We (in our error) bought a house with his parents when we got here. We're starting from a year and a half ago. We're starting from 45 years old.
The first family starts out in 1971 having just left a Union job for a non-Union job. He buys a house that he expects will be the last house he ever buys. He knows he's looking, but he isn't REALLY looking. God smiles on him and he finds it on the way home from work. It sort of lands in his lap, just like the job did. He's disabled in a way. He lost his eye as a teenager, but he never let that get him down. He never considered it a disability. He worked hard and taught his kids to work hard. A job worth doing is worth doing right. Never start anything you don't plan on finishing.
So, this house is a 3 bedroom ranch, exactly what he wants. One bedroom is a bit small, but that's ok. They probably got a 6-7% loan. They watched people who got an adjustable loan as they soared to 19.5% They dug in and stayed in their house. They even, while the rates were low, got a loan for the 1/2 acre plot next to them so that they had an acre of land. They stayed in this house while their kids grew up and left. As a matter of fact, they are still in this house. Their house is now paid off and they don't have a mortgage.
The second family in the early 70's lived in a 2 bedroom house. The husband worked repairing appliances. He had several employers, and at one time was self-employed. They bought a 3 bedroom, well, actually a 2 bedroom that had been converted to a 3 bedroom. It had a 3rd bedroom in the basement. The wife liked to entertain so she converted the upstairs living room into a dining room (the kitchen wasn't big enough) and moved the family room to the basement. In the 80's they bought another house because they wanted to have foster children and this house didn't have enough bedrooms. They bought a larger 4 bedroom house with a swimming pool. Later, they decided that they didn't like living in Illinois, and God was calling them to Texas, so they moved again. They had already bought another house for rental property and still had the house with the converted basement. They sold all three houses and bought one house in Texas for cash. So, here they are, 25 years later, with a house they bought for cash, but really no better off. If they hadn't had the rental property, they would have been in trouble.
My dad, who worked at the same job for 25 years and was able to retire at the age of 59.5 and then use his stock to live off of until now (he's 78). My mom, who worked as a nurse and dad put her through LPN school so she could get a better job. She did take a break from working when we were very little.
We have an excuse for not following in my prents footsteps. My husband was active duty for 20 years and we had government housing. We rented her house (with the converted basement) for a year, then bought our first house. We lived there for almost 3 years before moving to Texas. We (in our error) bought a house with his parents when we got here. We're starting from a year and a half ago. We're starting from 45 years old.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Open Letter to President Obama
Mr. President,
I've been thinking lately about what you're asking of me, and it's a bit much. I just can't do it. Right now, I may just be a stay at home mom, and you may think of me as a "stupid American" that you need to tell me everything and protect me from everything, but that has not always been the case. You see, between the years of 1984 and 1988, I was protecting your butt while I served in the United States Navy. I protected my country from the Russians. I had it drilled into my head that it was bad Communists/Socialist/Marxist....good Capitalist. I grew up with a whole generation of people who fought Hitler and his ilk who were taught the same thing. Communism bad....Capitalism good. I was taught that in school. I did miss the 1950's when they did the nuclear drills and had to duck under the desks. I'm 2 years younger than you are. So while you used college as an excuse not to serve your country, I was out there tracking Russian Submarines and making sure they didn't vaporize us.
Maybe that's why when you first ran for president, I realized you were not a Democrat. You see, I was raised a Democrat. I became a Republican in the navy. That's why in every other election, I didn't get upset when a Democrat won, and "my guy" lost. How could I? It meant my dad's guy won. My vote didn't really count, because it was just canceling out my dad's vote. When Bill Clinton won? I just went on with my life. Did I complain? Oh sure, sometimes, but I didn't run out and get a blog and complain that the world was coming to an end, he was going to destroy the US, and was deserving of treason charges. I was embarrassed with all the scandals, because it wasn't becoming of a President, and I was SO glad that he didn't sign MY discharge papers.
But when I saw you, all charges of where you were born aside, I knew you weren't a Democrat. I don't care that you ran as a moderate Democrat. You are neither moderate or a Democrat. Like I said, I was raised a Democrat. I also fought the Russians for 4 years. I know their tactics and I recognize them. The Navy taught me to recognize patterns. They just don't always click right away. Sometimes the patterns I see I don't get until they stew for a while. I know them in the back of my head, but I can't put them into words. I just know they're wrong, with every fiber of my being. You, Mr. President, are wrong. You're wrong for America and America knows it.
America is finding out fast because there are others like me that smell a rat. I know because I worked with Russians. There are LEGAL immigrants from Russian who fled that, who know. There are Vietnam veterans (even Democrat ones) who fought communism who are just as familiar with as me and know it. There are the WWII veterans who fought against communism/socialism/Marxism who are just as familiar with it as me, who know it. You can't silence all of us. We know. We feel it. And every time you cram a policy down our throats without us approving it, you prove just how fascist you are. Every time you silence dissent, you prove it. Every time you use another tactic out of the Alinsky play book, you prove it.
You have to realize, America doesn't want to spread her wealth. We want what we worked for and we want everyone else to work for what they get. America doesn't want anyone telling her what is best for her. Especially some spoiled brat who was raised by a Marxist/Communist and is taking on the dreams of his socialist father from Africa who isn't even an American. A man who's father hated Great Britain, our greatest ally. A man who is bent on destroying every thing we stand for out of some twisted idea of social justice.
I leave you with this thought: We can see November, 2012 from our back porch. How's the view from your porch? America is more resilient than you may think. And we won't fall to chaos as easily as you think. Prayer is a powerful tool. We are not the destructive left you are used to working with.
Lori Ann Smith
I've been thinking lately about what you're asking of me, and it's a bit much. I just can't do it. Right now, I may just be a stay at home mom, and you may think of me as a "stupid American" that you need to tell me everything and protect me from everything, but that has not always been the case. You see, between the years of 1984 and 1988, I was protecting your butt while I served in the United States Navy. I protected my country from the Russians. I had it drilled into my head that it was bad Communists/Socialist/Marxist....good Capitalist. I grew up with a whole generation of people who fought Hitler and his ilk who were taught the same thing. Communism bad....Capitalism good. I was taught that in school. I did miss the 1950's when they did the nuclear drills and had to duck under the desks. I'm 2 years younger than you are. So while you used college as an excuse not to serve your country, I was out there tracking Russian Submarines and making sure they didn't vaporize us.
Maybe that's why when you first ran for president, I realized you were not a Democrat. You see, I was raised a Democrat. I became a Republican in the navy. That's why in every other election, I didn't get upset when a Democrat won, and "my guy" lost. How could I? It meant my dad's guy won. My vote didn't really count, because it was just canceling out my dad's vote. When Bill Clinton won? I just went on with my life. Did I complain? Oh sure, sometimes, but I didn't run out and get a blog and complain that the world was coming to an end, he was going to destroy the US, and was deserving of treason charges. I was embarrassed with all the scandals, because it wasn't becoming of a President, and I was SO glad that he didn't sign MY discharge papers.
But when I saw you, all charges of where you were born aside, I knew you weren't a Democrat. I don't care that you ran as a moderate Democrat. You are neither moderate or a Democrat. Like I said, I was raised a Democrat. I also fought the Russians for 4 years. I know their tactics and I recognize them. The Navy taught me to recognize patterns. They just don't always click right away. Sometimes the patterns I see I don't get until they stew for a while. I know them in the back of my head, but I can't put them into words. I just know they're wrong, with every fiber of my being. You, Mr. President, are wrong. You're wrong for America and America knows it.
America is finding out fast because there are others like me that smell a rat. I know because I worked with Russians. There are LEGAL immigrants from Russian who fled that, who know. There are Vietnam veterans (even Democrat ones) who fought communism who are just as familiar with as me and know it. There are the WWII veterans who fought against communism/socialism/Marxism who are just as familiar with it as me, who know it. You can't silence all of us. We know. We feel it. And every time you cram a policy down our throats without us approving it, you prove just how fascist you are. Every time you silence dissent, you prove it. Every time you use another tactic out of the Alinsky play book, you prove it.
You have to realize, America doesn't want to spread her wealth. We want what we worked for and we want everyone else to work for what they get. America doesn't want anyone telling her what is best for her. Especially some spoiled brat who was raised by a Marxist/Communist and is taking on the dreams of his socialist father from Africa who isn't even an American. A man who's father hated Great Britain, our greatest ally. A man who is bent on destroying every thing we stand for out of some twisted idea of social justice.
I leave you with this thought: We can see November, 2012 from our back porch. How's the view from your porch? America is more resilient than you may think. And we won't fall to chaos as easily as you think. Prayer is a powerful tool. We are not the destructive left you are used to working with.
Lori Ann Smith
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
My Weekend
I had an interesting weekend. I spent it in the emergency room and the hospital. I've been pretty open about my medical history (probably more so than I should be). I have epilepsy - oh, excuse me, the politically correct term these days is "seizure disorder." I had an "incident" that didn't match up with a seizure on Friday. I had run an errand, and when I got home, my face went numb, my left arm went tingly and my legs went weak/heavy. That's not the symptoms for a seizure. I have a bit of medical background (mostly through my mother being a nurse, some because my son has been in the hospital so much), so I looked up TIA's on line. That stands for Transient Ischimic Attack. Now I was a bit wrong it exactly what it was. I thought it was a mini-stroke, I was a bit wrong. It is more like the body's warning system that a stroke COULD occur. My symptoms matched. While I was checking the differences between the two (stroke vs seizure), my son called from school. He was having another migraine, and wanted to know if he could take another non-aspirin pain reliever. I said yes and hung up. I was considering calling the school back to talk to the nurse and tell her that he had an appointment scheduled with the pediatric neurologist, when she called me back. She wanted me to email her a permission slip because this was the second time this had happened and they didn't have anything formal saying they could do this. I asked for her to give me her email address and had trouble spelling a simple word in the address. I realized I was confused, another big indicator.
At this point, I called my husband at work. NOW, at this point, I have to defend my husband. I was confused, and used medical talk to a mechanic. I told him I was either having a TIA or a seizure and needed to go to the ER. He had no idea what a TIA was, knew I had had seizures before and don't have grand mal but simple partial, and I didn't sound impaired. He told me to call his mother because he was swamped. I called his mother and she didn't answer her cell or house phone, so I called him back. He still argued with me so I hung up on him. By this time, my arm had quit tingling, but my face was still numb. My MIL called back. She had been in a doctor's appointment. She didn't hesitate, without even knowing what it was for, but I did tell her. Of course, she didn't know what a TIA was either, until I told her mini-stroke, once I was in the van.
After the CT, they said all the symptoms couldn't rule out a TIA, but they were inconsistent. So they checked me in for the night and scheduled an MRI. They said what was inconsistent was that both legs went weak/heavy. Usually a TIA is one side of the body. So after the MRI on Saturday (not until 3:00 PM), they ruled it a complex migraine.
I had found myself hoping it was a TIA because I didn't want to lose my driver's license due to a seizure. I had never even thought of a complex migraine. I didn't know you could have such symptoms with a migraine. They told me to get an appointment with my neurologist. Funny thing is, that morning, right before the errand I ran, I had made an appointment with my neurologist. They have me on Topamax. It causes severe short term memory loss. I used to hold the entire Russian fleet statistics in my head; I used to have the movie collection of my son (close to 100) plus his cd's, DVD's and cassette tapes so that when he wanted a new one I could say, "No, you already own that one." Now, I can't remember when to pay the mortgage, or IF I payed the mortgage. I can't remember to balance the checkbook at the end of the month when the statement comes in. I can't remember to get something out for dinner. I can't remember the surgery dates of my son. Things are falling out my ears. I know it's the Topamax, because I can remember other things if I sit down and try. I lose names, but they eventually come to me. I feel like an Alzheimer's patient sometimes. Given enough time, I can come up with it. But sometimes I don't have that time. For someone who considered herself fairly intelligent, it's somewhat a slap in the face.
I try to think maybe it's a God thing. God uses even our weaknesses to show how powerful He is. Not that I've done anything great, but what I've done for Him, He's done. I never would have been able to have done it on my own, in my own strength. My memory abilities only prove that.
Hopefully, changing medications will alleviate some of the problems. I would even put up with migraines again to have my memory back. I can now sympathize with Alzheimer's patients, though. Early stage get combatant because they know they should know....and they morn who they used to be.
At this point, I called my husband at work. NOW, at this point, I have to defend my husband. I was confused, and used medical talk to a mechanic. I told him I was either having a TIA or a seizure and needed to go to the ER. He had no idea what a TIA was, knew I had had seizures before and don't have grand mal but simple partial, and I didn't sound impaired. He told me to call his mother because he was swamped. I called his mother and she didn't answer her cell or house phone, so I called him back. He still argued with me so I hung up on him. By this time, my arm had quit tingling, but my face was still numb. My MIL called back. She had been in a doctor's appointment. She didn't hesitate, without even knowing what it was for, but I did tell her. Of course, she didn't know what a TIA was either, until I told her mini-stroke, once I was in the van.
After the CT, they said all the symptoms couldn't rule out a TIA, but they were inconsistent. So they checked me in for the night and scheduled an MRI. They said what was inconsistent was that both legs went weak/heavy. Usually a TIA is one side of the body. So after the MRI on Saturday (not until 3:00 PM), they ruled it a complex migraine.
I had found myself hoping it was a TIA because I didn't want to lose my driver's license due to a seizure. I had never even thought of a complex migraine. I didn't know you could have such symptoms with a migraine. They told me to get an appointment with my neurologist. Funny thing is, that morning, right before the errand I ran, I had made an appointment with my neurologist. They have me on Topamax. It causes severe short term memory loss. I used to hold the entire Russian fleet statistics in my head; I used to have the movie collection of my son (close to 100) plus his cd's, DVD's and cassette tapes so that when he wanted a new one I could say, "No, you already own that one." Now, I can't remember when to pay the mortgage, or IF I payed the mortgage. I can't remember to balance the checkbook at the end of the month when the statement comes in. I can't remember to get something out for dinner. I can't remember the surgery dates of my son. Things are falling out my ears. I know it's the Topamax, because I can remember other things if I sit down and try. I lose names, but they eventually come to me. I feel like an Alzheimer's patient sometimes. Given enough time, I can come up with it. But sometimes I don't have that time. For someone who considered herself fairly intelligent, it's somewhat a slap in the face.
I try to think maybe it's a God thing. God uses even our weaknesses to show how powerful He is. Not that I've done anything great, but what I've done for Him, He's done. I never would have been able to have done it on my own, in my own strength. My memory abilities only prove that.
Hopefully, changing medications will alleviate some of the problems. I would even put up with migraines again to have my memory back. I can now sympathize with Alzheimer's patients, though. Early stage get combatant because they know they should know....and they morn who they used to be.
Monday, October 4, 2010
A Walk Down Memory Lane
Well Glenn Beck asked us to go to Ancestry.com and trace our roots. I got the free trial and did just that. I have found some really interesting things. First of all, if you listen to my mother-in-law, my mom is just an in-bred redneck from Arkansas. Now I can prove her wrong. My mom's dad has a direct line to the daughter of Samuel Adams' daughter, Rebbecca. The ancestor's name was John Waldo. And apparently, his brother Daniel married Rebbecca's sister. And his other brother, Cornelius, was in George Washington's regiment.
I was so buried in research that I decided I couldn't do it all in two weeks. I bought a one month subscription. My housework, blog, and children were beginning to suffer, not necessarily in that order. My husband was beginning to feel neglected, too. Glenn, the left is right, you are capable of creating monsters! This genealogy is addicting! But the monsters you create don't destroy America, like the left wing nuts do.
So, I'm related to Samuel Adams. I realized just how easy it is to get off on a wrong branch. At first, I thought I could trace the Robinson side all the way back to the Norse vikings, but then I realized that a branch married brothers, or something to that effect, and it's like Glenn said: read the original document. There was a census where Martin J. Robinson moved his mother in with him (Martha) who was 79 years old. They had scratched out her age so it was a bit hard to read. The person who transcribed it, had her name Marta, and her age as 7. So they had her as being his mother, his sister and his daughter. ALWAYS go to the original document.
This is killing my mother-in-law, who always thought my mother was an inbred redneck from Arkansas. Now, she has roots back to Samuel Adams and the founding our our country. And my mother-in-law? She can only trace back to her grandmother because she was adopted. I imagine that makes her feel inadequate. Not the being adopted part. But it does explain a lot about how she treated her two adopted daughters, as somehow substandard. Not saying *I* feel that way....she does. I've tried to search my Father-in-law's side and I came across stories from the civil war that are really interesting and a family portrait that looks exactly like him. I find that fascinating, too. It IS my children's family history.
You see, that's the difference between my MIL and me. I would be thrilled if she could trace her family tree to the founding fathers or even royalty. I would probably tease her if it was royalty, but I would be proud for her. I would bow to her, in jest, "Shall I get your coffee, m'lady?" But that's just me. I can't believe someone would hold a grudge because someone else can trace their roots to the founding fathers and you can't. How petty.
Any way, I'm having fun doing the research, and my family can't wait until I'm done. Especially my mother.
I was so buried in research that I decided I couldn't do it all in two weeks. I bought a one month subscription. My housework, blog, and children were beginning to suffer, not necessarily in that order. My husband was beginning to feel neglected, too. Glenn, the left is right, you are capable of creating monsters! This genealogy is addicting! But the monsters you create don't destroy America, like the left wing nuts do.
So, I'm related to Samuel Adams. I realized just how easy it is to get off on a wrong branch. At first, I thought I could trace the Robinson side all the way back to the Norse vikings, but then I realized that a branch married brothers, or something to that effect, and it's like Glenn said: read the original document. There was a census where Martin J. Robinson moved his mother in with him (Martha) who was 79 years old. They had scratched out her age so it was a bit hard to read. The person who transcribed it, had her name Marta, and her age as 7. So they had her as being his mother, his sister and his daughter. ALWAYS go to the original document.
This is killing my mother-in-law, who always thought my mother was an inbred redneck from Arkansas. Now, she has roots back to Samuel Adams and the founding our our country. And my mother-in-law? She can only trace back to her grandmother because she was adopted. I imagine that makes her feel inadequate. Not the being adopted part. But it does explain a lot about how she treated her two adopted daughters, as somehow substandard. Not saying *I* feel that way....she does. I've tried to search my Father-in-law's side and I came across stories from the civil war that are really interesting and a family portrait that looks exactly like him. I find that fascinating, too. It IS my children's family history.
You see, that's the difference between my MIL and me. I would be thrilled if she could trace her family tree to the founding fathers or even royalty. I would probably tease her if it was royalty, but I would be proud for her. I would bow to her, in jest, "Shall I get your coffee, m'lady?" But that's just me. I can't believe someone would hold a grudge because someone else can trace their roots to the founding fathers and you can't. How petty.
Any way, I'm having fun doing the research, and my family can't wait until I'm done. Especially my mother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)