Our Surroundings Sometimes Describe Our Motives

Sometimes the events of our birth place or where we were raised will help to shape us as adults. For instance, I describe myself as an American. I have been steeped in American values. I sort of describe it like a tea bag, since the left is so fond of describing us as "tea baggers." When a tea bag is dipped in hot water, it permeates the water and flavors it. The events of the surrounding water permeate it also. If you don't have pure water, you will not have good tea. You can't have Earl tea if you start out with soda for liquid.

I have also said that I don't know specifics of history, especially since the Progressives have tried their hardest to change it and hide what they have tried to do. I don't expect someone not born or raised in America to understand our values.

I have often said that President Obama, I believe was born in Hawaii. That does not, however make him an American. He was later taken to Indonesia in approximately 1966. We say approximately because he won't release his records. How peculiar.

I did a search of events in Indonesia in 1966. I came up with an interesting thing. What was President Obama steeped in? What events occurred in Indonesia in 1966? Would you believe one of history's biggest massacres? "One of history's biggest massacres ever took place in Indonesia in 1965/66, when around half a million people were killed in the suppression of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI)." The complete article is found at: http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Indonesian_Killings.html

The article talks about the lack of information available. I imagine that's due to the same reason we are fighting...scrubbing. Information was removed. They're not sure what events lead up to the massacre, or how many people were actually killed. The figures range from seventy five thousand (75,000) to two million (2,000,000). Yes that was 2 million people. They also don't know why they didn't struggle.

They say that it followed a pattern: "general unrest followed by military sanctioned and assisted murder by nationalist and Muslim youth groups." The violence was varied according to region, whether it was political or religious.

Does this sound eerily familiar? does this not sound like President Obama is attempting right now? This is the mentality of what he was raised with, and it's what he was "steeped" in. It's the tactic he is using on us now. It's what he was raised with. NO, I don't think he was born in Indonesia. But he was raised in Indonesia during this time period and directly after it. His mom was there. He was raised with the stories of it. He heard about it. It's in his mind.

Should we be concerned?

Lori Ann Smith
Screaming from the Ramparts

I am Calling Out the Top Three News Stations

I've had it. I wanted to be a journalist, but I joined the Navy instead. I've had no formal training, save one or two classes while in my first year of college. And that was 26 years ago. The Press has abandoned We the People. I've been left to do the job that they were supposed to be doing. Luckily, I like research. Let's see if I have this right.

The Democrats have told us all of my life that they are for the little people, and the Republicans are for the big business, the rich man. Why is it then, that Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street's most prestigious investment banks, contributed by a 3:1 margin, to the DEMOCRAT party? I don't know about you, but I kind of expect white lies from politicians, but not out right lies? I don't expect them to just look me in the face and lie to me and push their own agenda and fundamentally change MY country into something I don't want behind my back. I'd slug someone, even a family member, who treated me that way. I'd cut them off and never speak to them again. And we keep electing them to office. And the minorities in this country keep being loyal to them. No, they're for me, they understand my problems, they're for the little man. Really??

Here's the website with all the tables and statistics: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085

I'm not advocating violence, because in this case, it's what Obama wants. He is doing just that because he wants Anarchy so he can fundamentally change this country into something else. What is his something else? I don't know for sure, but it sure looks like Marxism to me. Or communism, which is what I fought in the United States Navy.

It goes back to 1990 with a total contributed of $31,612,375.....$20,304,872 went to the Democrats....that was 64%....and $11,204,413 went to the Republicans...that was 35%. They even break it down into what came from Individuals, PACs, what was soft (Individuals) and Soft (Organizations). Now, I'm new to this, I had to look up PAC, it stands for Political Action Committee. It's interesting to note that from 2004 on, all contributions came from PACs and not individuals or organizations. Did the American people know that we bailed out Goldman Sachs so they could contribute $5,735,864 to the Obama campaign between 2008 and 2010? Well, to be fair, they did give $2,209,961 to the Republicans, which is only 38.5%. I think if you need a bail out, you shouldn't turn around and contribute to politics.

If I'm having trouble making my bills, I have to say no to people who call and ask me to donate to things, like the Sheriff's fund, the Cancer Society, etc. So, why does Goldman Sachs get away with donating our money to political candidates after getting bailed out? Even if someone gives me money, I apply it to my bills, I don't turn around and give it to the American Cancer Society.

Now, here's where I call out the news stations. Will this get reported on? I pulled up the bios of the top three anchors.

ABC's Diane Sawyer. You have had a distinguished career. Is it winding down that you can just ignore such an event? I guess they didn't teach in Wellesley College that you are supposed to be UNBIASED in your reporting. She was born in Kentucky. Are you afraid that someone will call you a hick? I've got news for you Ms. Sawyer, you have proven yourself. It was a time when women weren't allowed to do many things. She was hired by the White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler to serve in the administration of Richard Nixon. She helped prepare President Nixon for his famous set of television interviews with journalist David Frost in 1977. There's a rumor that she was Deep Throat....at least according to Wikipedia.

So we know that Diane Sawyer has journalistic talent. Where is that talent now? She is sitting on it. Is she afraid of this administration, or is she in agreement with it? Where are you Ms. Sawyer? Where do you stand? Are you with an America that is a Republic, or a Socialistic Amerika? You have interviewed Fidel Castro, and Nancy Pelosi. Did it sway you into liking Communism?

NBC's Ann Curry. Here's an interesting Bio. Ms. Curry was born in Guam. Are you worried Guam will tip over? What does your father think of what's happening to his beloved America? He was a career Navy man. He married the love of his life, against the initial wishes of the military, because she was Japanese. Do you think he's a racist? I think it's a great love story. She's my age, just a little older.

I didn't like the way Wikipedia wrote their article, though. It stated that she "read" the news on the Today Show since 1997. It makes it sound like she is nothing but a pretty face. Can you do anything more than read the news? It does list a lot of volunteer work that you did. Are you good at research, too? It also lists you as Roman Catholic. How do you reconcile your beliefs with pro-choice? How do you reconcile that with Nancy Pelosi's statement that you probably shouldn't go to the emergency room if you don't agree with abortion? The health care bill will eventually cover abortions. This administration is pro-choice. Are you going to research why they are lying about why they are for the banks sending money to them? They are in bed with big money, and telling us they are for the little people.

CBS's Katie Couric. Ms. Couric is another southern belle, being from Virginia. She is also slightly older than me, but close enough to be considered my peer. She became an active journalist the same year I joined the Navy, 1984. Her maternal grandparents were the children of Jewish immigrants. Is that why you don't push it with this administration? They are obviously against the Jewish people. Everyone can see that. So why are you do you have a bias for them?

This administration has not been very women friendly, Ms. Couric. How do you reconcile that with Tri-Delta? Isn't it, once a Tri-Delta, always a Tri-Delta? What would they say now? You aren't researching why the biggest bank in America is donating so much money to the Democrats, and the Democrats are perpetuating the lie that the Democrats are for the little people, the down-trodden, when in fact they are the ones kicking them down? Shame on you. So much for investigative reporting.

So, I guess in spite of all the glorious career bios I've listed, they are indeed just pretty faces on the television. There is no longer any real investigative reporting going on. It has gotten soft. Is this the softer side of journalism? Women so wanted into the Man's world of journalism. I remember it well. Being told, it's a man's world. If you want into journalism, you have to be tough. They may send you into a war zone, you might have to dodge bullets.

You see, I almost went into the Navy as a photographer. My test scores were too high, so my recruiter wanted me in a technical field instead. I know now he just wanted a higher rating, and if I had pressed, I could have gone in as a photographer, but God knew what he was doing. I was 20 and naive. I listened to my recruiter. But they told me in college that a journalist's job is not always easy, and that's why it's a man's world. What has it become? A politician's job?

I'm throwing down the gauntlet to the women in journalism. I'm untrained. You have the "degrees." Why am I doing your job?

Lori Ann Smith
Facing the challenge, Screaming from the Rampart

The Dirty Secret the Left has Tried to Keep Hidden in History

There's a dirty little secret the Left has tried to keep hidden for centuries. They even rewrite history to keep it hidden. But the problem with rewriting history is that you can't rewrite all of the history books. You miss some. There will be oral history, there will be people who survive and they will write it down. You will miss some books, and they will survive. You might miss a country that you didn't have control over totally, and their books will eventually come out. You see, truth has a way of doing that, coming into the light eventually.

And what is that dirty little secret? The left would have you believe that the only race to ever be held in slavery is the black man. I've found a document, that unlike a lot of the left's documents about our founding father's has a lot of footnotes. The actual website is: http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/white_slavery.htm

I'm going to summarize it in this blog.

I absolutely love the first paragraph. "A famous history professor stated that history was not a science but a continuing investigation into the past; a person’s conclusion is based on their own bias. This story will offer evidence that the Alba, Scots, Irish and Pics have been the longest race held in slavery. The reader will be responsible for their own bias pertaining to White Slavery."

I have to admit that I do hold a certain bias. I am Irish. I am white. But I also will admit that I understand that the black man has been enslaved. I think all slavery is wrong. There are different kids of slavery, in my opinion. In the past, one was actually sold, and you had to "work off" your payment. I'm sure the owner kept adding to it so the slave never actually had the ability to pay off the debt. Or maybe there were honest ones who allowed it to happen. Now it's a bit different. The government enslaves in a different way. It's called Welfare. Let's raise the tax base so high that you can't pay it, but then we "give" you money to live. You're now indentured to us. You can never work it off, because it costs more to get a job, because then we take away what we're giving you. You can't have both, and you can't pay the taxes without our handout. That's slavery. You see, those on Welfare don't have to pay the taxes, but as soon as they get a job, they do. But the cost of living is such that if they have a job, they can't have the things they are used to having on Welfare. It's a cycle that they aren't willing to break. It takes a level of bravery to break it....are they willing to step out of slavery? Are they willing to break the chains that bind? That slavery knows no race.

But, back to the article. This article tells of Scottish people being sold into slavery. It tells specifically of Jeremiah Howell being a lifetime indentured servant and winning his freedom by fighting in the Revolution.

According to the Egerton manuscript, the enactment of 1652, which is in the British Museum, two or more justices could arrest a vagrant or person who was begging and send them to the colonies as a slave. During the years of 1662-1665, if you made life unpleasant for the upper class, they shipped you to the colonies as slaves. I have to ask the question, what is considered unpleasant? Is it questioning the government? Is it saying I don't want to be taxed? In today's politics, would we have been rounded up and sold into slavery for our "tea parties?"

This article points out incidences of white slavery from as early as the first century BC. Varro, a Roman Philosopher; Julius Cesar; Pope Gregory of the 6th century noted blue eyed, Blondie haired boys in a Roman slave market.

"The eighth to the eleventh centuries proved to be very profitable for Rouen France." They sold Irish and Flemish slaves to Arab nations. The Vikings were a major component of the slave trade. They often called the Scottish Irish, and they took many to Spain, Scandinavia and Russia.

As a personal note, not in the text of this article. If you search the Bible you will find reference of conquering armies always capturing the defeated race and taking captives as slaves. It's been done through out history. So why have we, as a white race, been vilified as the only ones to have ever done it, and only to the black man? Yes, it is uncivilized, and should not be done. So why does our government do it with economics?

I could go on, but you'll have to read the article. I believe that the Left has to paint someone to be the villain in order to push their agenda. They have to point fingers and make someone look more evil than they are. They use people. That's just what they do. It's the useful idiots agenda. They actually are the elite, and if they had their way, they would round up the tea party people and ship them somewhere else, anywhere, because we are making things unpleasant for them. Think about it. The ones who aren't making things unpleasant, the ones enslaved by the tax codes, the entitlements, the left is still using them, so they're the "good guys." They're the useful idiots. What would happen if suddenly they decided that things weren't going well? What would happen if suddenly the useful idiots started making things unpleasant for the Obama administration? Would Obama suddenly start making things not so pleasant for that class of people? Or would they blame everything on the Tea Party? Oh, those Tea Party People, they made me make this legislation. Just remember. It's a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic President who can veto anything the Senate puts out. The only thing they don't have any more is a super majority since Brown got elected. They can no longer have that 60/40 in the Senate. They still have a simple majority which passes most normal stuff. And Obama can just sign an Executive Order. He has with everything else. We have to be the bad guys in that scenario, so they have to keep buried that white people were once enslaved as well.

Well, too bad. History can't stay buried too long. The Arabs enslaved white people, and Obama is part Arab...can I get restitution?

Lori Ann Smith

Progresistas en la Historia (PART THREE OF THREE) revised

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

Note: Permission granted to repost for non-profit, as long as my name remains with this blog. Translated by Sandra Davila.

Progresistas en la Historia (PART TWO)

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.

NOTE: PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRINT FOR NON-PROFIT AS LONG AS MY NAME STAYS WITH THIS PUBLICATION.)

Lori Ann Smith
http://loriann12.blogspot.com

Illinois EPA Testing for Pharaceuticals in Water

Once again, I stumbled upon something. Aways seems to happen that way for me. It seems in 2008 (funny, that's just when Obama took office, isn't it?) the Illinois EPA started receiving complaints of Pharmaceuticals in the drinking water in the Chicago area. It seems Governor Blagojevich requested that the EPA monitor and test for PPCPs (Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products) and access the affects on the public health. Does that sound like fear mongering? OMGosh! All you people are flushing your pills down the drain and you're damaging the environment! You're going to kill us all! You're shampoos, the insect repellent that you wash off your bodies are aborting your babies! We are going to have to come up with environment friendly EVERYTHING! Do you think maybe this could be a new industry? Hire the Green Czar!

Here's the Report page: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/pharmaceuticals-in-drinking-water.pdf

It states in the paper: "Since there are no established standards or guidelines for the chemicals analyzed for this project, it was necessary to develop Screening Levels for these chemicals. In consultation with IDPH toxicologists and other health professionals, the Agency chose to develop the Screening Levels for the PPCPs using a conservative risk assessment approach. This approach drew heavily on the procedures used in the recently finalized Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (2008) to develop Drinking Water Guidelines (DWGs) to be applied to recycled waste waters in Australia."

First, why do we have to go to a European country for standards? Second, don't we have a large enough scientific community to establish our own standards and aren't there some standars already in place? And actually, I was able to find on the Internet how much caffeine it takes to abort a fetus.....200mg daily. So I don't know what they mean by there aren't any standards. But when you read further down, you understand why they did this. They wanted a lower Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), which they could only get by slanting it with European data. It's all in who you listen to. They wanted that .002 parts per million number, not the 200 parts per million number.

But, even though they skewed the data this badly, they still got data in the safe zone. Now, why is this still of concern? Because all they have to do is dump more stuff in the water and raise the levels a bit and they can call it dangerous levels and push for more regulation. Or they can say that we are "dangerously" close to being at a level where it will be a problem.

Did anyone notice that this report never saw the light of day? Or is it me? I don't live in Illinois.

This is the sampling page: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/pharm-data-summary.pdf

I discovered that ug/L means parts per million. Think of it as 1 drop in a billion other drops. So if the sample reads .05 ug/L it means .05 of one drop of that drug in a billion other drops of clean water.

Now, how is this significant? The left is always screaming about how we affect the environment...mankind is killing each other by the way we affect the earth. We are dumping things down the drain, our pills when we don't need them anymore, our shampoos are not earth friendly, we wash off our insect repellent and it goes into our water supply, etc. It's all destroying our earth. They don't take into consideration that God made this earth to be renewable. Have you ever made a filter system? You can research it online.

Here's the site I found: http://www.ehow.com/how_4880648_homemade-water-filters.html

The earth is designed to filter water. It says right on the site you need sand, gravel, and charcoal. Wow, that's found in the earth. So when the water flows through the earth, it filters out the chemicals that we flush down the drain. What a concept. Do you know how charcoal gets into the ground? From forests burning down. That could occur naturally from lightening strikes. You tree huggers got it wrong. God made the earth to be self-healing, as long as we're fairly responsible and don't go out of our to TRY to destroy it. We can go and live our lives without the government regulating the heck out of us.

Does that mean we can dump chemicals directly into a river....no, I didn't say that. Is that being responsible? No. But Illinois wants to regulate you and me by monitoring our households and seeing if we are flushing our pills and beauty supplies down the drain...or possibly making the businesses make "environmentally friendly" beauty supplies for everyone. I can see the writing on the wall. Why else would they look at the impact of PPCP's in the water supply? I'm sure it wasn't just for our health. This was after Obama got in office, and it was his good buddy Blagojevich. Do you think maybe ole Blago had plans of helping out Van Jones, the Green Czar?

Their conclusion? They are starting a pilot program to safely collect everyone's pharmaceuticals and safely dispose of them. Let me ask this question, residents of Illinois: Do you want the state of Illinois knowing what medications you are on? If so, you can safely turn in your pharmaceuticals with household hazardous waste to predetermined collection sites. Here's the areas... http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/hazardous-waste/household-haz-waste/hhwc-schedule.html

Funny how it's only in Naperville, Chicago, Rockford and Lake County. I guess the rest of Illinois is out of luck. You'll have to flush your pharmaceuticals like the rest of the nation for now.

Lori Ann Smith
Does this make me a muckracker?

Re-Post of Barack Obama and the Prom Queen

It's been a while since I posted this one, and I have some new people viewing me. So here's a blast from the past. A pretty accurate description of how Obama is running America.

Barack Obama and the Prom Queen

I just realized what America is like. It's like America has been at a bar. America has been busy partying, drinking away, some have never drank before and are a bit tipsy. Those are the ones who are excited about having a black man for president. Whoo Hoo! It's a party. He is a handsome man! Did they even listen to the words he was saying when he was in campaign mode? Who cares? Just look at him? He's gonna represent us when he gets in office. We've been held down so many years. Does it matter that we were held down by his kind? Kind of like the big Frat boy who comes in and there's Betty, on the bar dancing because she's had one too many. He talks her into taking her top off. Pretty soon he's got her not only dancing on the bar with out her top, he's slipped her a date rape drug in her drink, and walked her home.

Then he invited the rest of the frat house over. That would be SEIU, the prescriptions drug companies, whoever he can think of. Now some of them have scruples. They see poor Betty just lying there and they start discussing how, now this just ain't right. The big frat guy knows this drug ain't gonna last forever...he starts bribing, cajoling and badgering them to get in line.

He finally gets everyone in line. That's when the policies start coming....the rape of the Prom Queen. Well, that's about the time the drug starts to wear off. Now America wakes up...but it's a bit too late. Everything is in place. Do you think she'll be upset? She may turn into Carrie at the Prom.....Have you heard the phrase Hell hath no furry like a woman scorned?

What we are doing is banging on the door, trying to wake her up because we are the neighbors who hear the party going on next door and we saw them drag her in. We know she's not conscious. We are concerned citizens who can't watch and do nothing. Can we wake her before it's too late? We don't need another Carrie. I saw that movie...it didn't end well.

Lori Ann Smith
I stand for freedom, though none stand with me, until they knock me down and I can stand no more

Who do You Worship?

I recently had an Epiphany. Who do we worship? I turned my life over to Christ 16 years ago. At that time I surrendered my life to him. It's not an easy thing to do. It's a daily struggle. On a daily basis I have to surrender to him. Does that mean I no longer have a will? Not necessarily. I don't walk through life a zombie. I don't get messages from some other side that tells me what to do. Man, I wish it was that easy. I have to discern what I think the Lord wants me to do. I read my Bible, I listen to godly people, I look at circumstances around me and if what I want to do doesn't conflict with God's Word, I know I can do it. If I feel like God has told me to do something, and it conflicts with God's word, it probably didn't come from God.

Who else could it have come from? In my religion (Baptist), there are other forces at work in this world. God also created Satan. I believe He overhears and intervenes when we want to hear a Word from God.

But enough of the background. My Epiphany. I have struggled my whole life with issues of control. I have a background of abuse, as those who either know me or have followed my blogs know. I am gaining control of these problems because God is throwing issues at me causing me to gain control over it. Recently, he showed me the following analogy.

When you let someone control you, you are actually worshipping them. You are saying that they have more power than God. If you, like me, have given your life to Christ, then that person who is trying to control you should not have that ability. If you think they CAN control you, you ascribe them the power above God. Anything that you put above God, is worship. God can at anytime, take control of the situation away from the person who is controlling you, should He desire, if you take it to Him in prayer, and it's His will.

NOW, we apply this on a national level. Obama is controlling our nation. With my Epiphany, this means we have a nation of people who are actually worshipping Obama. When the press called Obama the Messiah, they weren't that far off. Everyone who allows Obama to control them, is worshipping him.

So, how do we NOT allow him to control us? We CAN'T do civil disobedience, because that would lead to anarchy. We see that protesting doesn't work because the people in the government don't listen to us peons. So, America, have you tried prayer? I'm not advocating that you become BAPTIST. That's not actually how I got saved, anyway. I broke out a Bible and started reading it. I started with the NEW Testament, because the Old was a little hard to understand for me. I don't remember exactly where it was at the time, but I came upon a verse that said (extremely paraphrased, it has been 16 years...) when the Lord comes for you, let him find you with clean hands.... I looked down at my nicotine stained hands, and knew that wasn't me. I only became Baptist because the church behind my grandpa's house was Baptist and the man I married was Baptist.

My testimony can be found on my blog (http://loriann12.blogspot.com) entitled My Story. I came to Christ with a hangover. I didn't stop to clean up my act....Christ takes you as you are. In the past, I had always bargained with God....just get me out of this and I'll promise to...you fill in the blank. But this time I didn't do that. I fully expected to stay right where I was. Maybe that's why God didn't leave me there.

God is like a friend. He doesn't want you to follow rules, he wants to be your friend. He doesn't want you to only be his friend on Sunday and then ignore him the rest of the week and destroy yourself. He wants the best for you all the time. He makes rules for our lives, for our good. He's not like Obama, who is making rules for our lives because he thinks he can. Obama is just a man. He is not divine. If he is controlling a nation, and you are worshipping him by allowing him to control you, you can stop. Don't be an Obama Zombie. Turn to God instead. Our nation still has a chance, just like Nineveh.

Lori Ann Smith

Proof our troops are training for civil unrest

This is extremely disturbing to me. I said it at least 6 months ago and was labeled a conspiracy theorist. I was told I was believing unsubstantiated crap off the Internet and subscribing to conspiracy theories. Well, now it's being written of in ArmyTimes. (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/) Is that proof enough?

Our troops are being trained for combating civil unrest. I've been to a tea party. There was no civil unrest. Do they know something I don't know? Is this civil unrest coming from Obama's men? It sure isn't coming from the right. Is Obama's men going to instigate it?

They have pulled 3rd Infantry's Brigade Combat Team home to train for a new mission.

"In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area."

Are they expecting survivalists to hole up in the forests? Are Obama's men going to poison us? Are they expecting a terrorist attack on us? Are they going to use nuclear weapons on Americans? Or is this an Alynsky tactic to get a threat out that is just an empty threat to keep us in line...just threaten, and we'll have to follow through? Just like when they leaked that they were going to storm the subway line with homeless people and fill up all the toilets so no one could use them when some dignatary was due in in New York City so they cancelled. They know that middle America is pissed at them, and we're armed. They know that what they are doing is unconstitutional, and that they are in the wrong. They know that they are cramming things down our throats and they are pushing us beyond our limits and that when they were pushed beyond their limits, they exploded. But, let me ask this question: How were they pushed? What was it they wanted in their day? How many people did they have on their side and what changes did they want? How did they go about getting their change?

Back in the 60's and 70's when the radicals were trying to change our government into what they wanted, how did they go about it and what was their support? I've read Michelle Robinson Obama's College Thesis. She compared Black college students entering Princeton to those leaving and how they wanted to help the poor black society. She concluded that those who had a lot of exposure to white society while in college left not wanting to help the poor black society as much, and began identifying with the whites more, and the poor blacks less. They became integrationists, instead of separationists. My theory is that the two are related. She cited a Black Power book as her research book.

These radicals didn't just want equality of the races. They wanted dominance. This is "some have been in power long enough and it's time for them to step down and let someone else have a time in power" philosophy. She thought Princeton should have been pumping out socialists and instead they left integrated. They felt a bond with the white students because they realized they weren't as racist as they were lead to believe. Whoa, we can't have that. That's why this administration wants free college to people who can't afford it and aren't qualified for it. That's why they are yelling that the tea party movement is racist. They have to foster racism to cover the fact that they are so racist. They have to get the races separate.

What form of government did they want in the 60's and 70's? They wanted Marxism and Socialism; the same thing they want now. We fought it then, and we're fighting it now. The only difference is that it was the hippy fringe trying to get the government to change back then, and now it's the government telling us we're the fringe. I considered myself a bit of a radical back then. But to me a radical meant I didn't listen to my parents. It didn't mean I wanted to overthrow my government.

The Tea Party movement doesn't want to OVERTHROW the government. It wants to shrink the CURRENT government back down to the lap dog we had, instead of the pit bull it has become. The dog we have is about to break it's leash and we don't like that. We want to either take it back to the pound and trade it in, or take it to the Vet and neuter it. We don't want to kill it and buy a cat.

Back in the 60's and 70's, how many were with their movement? A fringe. That's why it was put down so easily. How many are with our movement? I think they said it was something like 70% are dissatisfied with Washington, according to a CBS poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6199132-503544.html). Even the Washington Post, a liberal Medium, listed it at 2/3 dissatisfied or downright angry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021004708.html). That's not fringe. Fringe is 20%. Is the left angry because they couldn't get those numbers behind them in the 60's and 70's? Maybe it's because they wanted to get rid of the constitution and we want to go BACK to it?

Like I said in the beginning of this blog....the Army is gearing up for civil unrest. But I don't really think they'll need it from our side. Will they need it from the left? We may have instigators infiltrate our movement. But you know what? We've taken care of that peacefully, so they still aren't needed. Have you seen how we take care of that? We made signs that read Leftist Infiltrator, with an arrow. We point out the infiltrator at our rallies. We run them out peaceably. In a society of U-tube....he's on the air and gets the recognition he so desperately wants. Every one knows he's from the left and not the tea party movement. You're not fooling anyone. You can't keep up the disguise very long. We have all nationalities within our movement. This is not about race. This is about America, the melting pot. We welcome diversity, when you come here legally. How sad is it that you want to separate the races again? Throw us back to BEFORE Martin Luther King, Jr.? He'd be rolling over in his grave. Or he'd be proud of the tea party movement....peaceably promoting the advancement of equality.

But I have news for you, President Obama: You need to check out Oath Keeper's site. We have lots (don't know the numbers) of people in this nation who are refusing such orders. They are veterans, Police officers, active duty military and civilians who are taking an oath to not fire on civilians for one thing. Any President of the United States who tramples on the Constitution is not my Commander in Chief, no matter where he was born. Any President of the United States who wishes to turn this Republic into a Marxist country, is not my Commander in Chief.

And to those who would say, where were you when President Bush was spending us into oblivion, I'll say this: Why weren't you screaming from the ramparts and talking facts and not opinion? Why were you only hanging the man in effigy? Why did you only spit epitaphs at the man? Why did you only incite riots? Where were your facts? Why is it that we can come up with so many facts? And where are you now that Obama is doing it worse? Just because it's your man, you have to abandon principle? I've come to see that Bush wasn't everything I thought he was, and have admitted that I was a Yellow Dog Republican. Do you have the guts to do the same? Let's drop the party lines and get together to save our Republic! The R and the D is supposed to be minor differences like pro-choice and pro-life, or one side wants to have more entitlements than the other side. NOT one side wants the constitution and the other side wants Marxism. Did you vote for Marxism? If you did, get behind him and run with it. If you didn't, get with the constitution. But if you wanted Marxism, you better research it and see what you're getting into. It never ends well.

Lori Ann Smith

Analysis of Michelle Obama's Thesis

I've found Michelle Obama's thesis online. It's quite interesting. It's entitled Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community. She wanted to see how the attitudes of her fellow students changed over time with being in a mostly white college. She wanted to see if being in a mostly white college changed a black student from wanting to help other black people in their community.

She cites Van den Berghe, Billingsley, and Carmichael and Hamilton, to name a few as they name the concepts of Separationism/Pluralism, Integrationism/Assimilationism. Van den Berghe talks about 2 concepts of Separationism. 1) cultural structural pluralism where they find their own language, values and things to do together. 2) social structural pluralism where they find shared languages and values across different ethnic groups.

Billingsley believed that Blacks needed to build up their communities and define themselves differently from whites' standards and exercise power and control over their own institutions and services within their black communities.

To me, this is a scary philosophy, and would take us back to the 1960's where there was segregation. I don't want communities that are strictly black. This sounds like the black version of Governor George Wallace. Why isn't this seen as racist? If there was a white man talking this stuff, building up a white community and putting power in their services, there would be an outrage. We are talking equality, and they are talking power. They (at least those in Michelle's circle) don't want equality, they want dominance. It's disturbing to me that she uses footnotes by Black Power, The Politics of Liberation in America.

The next set of variables she looks at is how to measure benefits. How does it affect the person? She makes a good argument here. You can't help everyone, so people will rank in importance, themselves, their family, their community, their occupation, the non-white community, the black community, the black lower-class. She said you need to separate the black lower-class because some have gone to Princeton and graduated and are no longer lower-class. They may have guilt for betraying the lower class.

She also takes up for looking inside at oneself to a time-line to Pre-Princeton, Princeton and Post-Princeton for changes in attitudes. She also admits that it will be a small sampling of the black community. It makes me wonder how she picked them? Did she know them? Did she only pick the ones that she knew were radical? Which I found later on. She went to the directory and picked every 4th person and mailed a questionnaires until she got to 400. She had 89 people return their questionnaires.

She did include variables such as time spent interacting with blacks and whites, the racial make up of their schools, both primary and secondary, the race of the person they most admired, their image of God, the number of books in the home both growing up and now, and the sex and age of the person. She also wanted to look at their parents' economic level.

I have to admit she's brilliant: A racist, but brilliant. That's just my opinion, which may change as I read the thesis, but at this point, on the first section of it, it comes off as racist. I am not a separatist. It is my experience that the more you are around the different races, the more you gain an appreciation that God created a great variety. If you live with only your own, you are deprived of the great variety in life.

The first variable she explores is time. She felt that the more time the Princeton students spent with black students, the more they would feel they should help black lower class blacks.

The socio-economical status puts them more on a level with the whites, because they can afford to go to Princeton. Either way, the more the individual identifies with the black community, the more positive will be the attitude towards the black poor. The more the individual identifies with the white community, the more negative the attitude will be towards the black poor.

So, they came to Princeton willing to help themselves and their families, which is capitalist. They left wanting to help their occupations... they came out as a socialist. Gee, what does that tell you? Princeton is pumping out socialists, I guess. There was also a drop in 4% to benefit God.

Now we know why Michelle is pushing college for everyone. After leaving college, blacks didn't feel comfortable around other blacks on an intellectual level. They felt more intellectually comfortable around whites than blacks.

Michelle found that the more Blacks were separated the more they were motivated to help the black community, and likewise the more they were assimilated with the white community, the less they were motivated to help the black community. This so speaks volumes. This is behind their push to get everyone in college no matter their ability to pay for it. It would not surprise me if she didn't push for black colleges with no admittance of white students. Most racists that I've met are ignorant people. This is an example of what it's like when a brilliant person is a racist. They can twist data and make it say what they want it to say. It's funny how they can make the tea partiers out to be dumb rednecks and racists, when in reality, this is the picture of racism in America. We have people of all colors at our tea parties. They are advocating separation because blacks won't want to help the lower class blacks if they are around white people. How racist is that? And I can be depicted as a racist because I go to a tea party, but I'll bet I'll be demonized for calling Michelle Obama a racist for wanting the blacks to be separate from the whites in college. What if I called for the white people to be separate from the blacks in college like she just did in her thesis? What if I proved in a thesis that white people who were around black people didn't want to help the white lower class?

She decides at this point that the more separatist/pluralism one becomes, the more they are willing to help the black community. This basically means if they are for segregation, they will help the black community. If they are integrationism/assimilationsism, they won't be as willing to help the black community. Do you think maybe they think if I got up, they can get out of that ghetto, too? I have to ask, what does she mean by help? Does she mean keep in place all the welfare programs? Do they mean make them help themselves? They may mean give them a job, and she may mean keep them dependent on the government. Two different ways of helping.

From Michelle's conclusions, the more time black students spend with other black students, the more motivated they will be to help the black community, and the more time they spend with white students, the less they will be motivated to help the black community. The more time blacks spent with blacks, the more they became sep/plur, meaning (in my opinion) the more racist they became. It means the more they became likely to want to separate into separate communities of blacks keeping to their "own kind," and whites keeping to themselves. How sad is that? The more time blacks spent with whites, the more they became integrationists. That means they became less racist. They learned that we weren't what the left painted us as. Wow, what a concept.

She goes on to talk about the differences in black and white culture. Yes, there is a difference in the cultures, but that doesn't warrant separation of the races. We could both benefit from each other. She does add that it is not necessary to be tied to the culture to be motivated to help the lower class blacks. Gee, does it follow that you don't have to be BLACK to want to help the lower class blacks?

She then claims to have redefined how to define the concept of identification. Does this mean she has redefined how you define yourself as black? I have to wonder at that as I continue reading. President Obama has been defined as a black man, even though he is only 6% black....is it because he has been around a lot of black people and identifies himself as black, according to this thesis and as redefined by Michelle?

Because I am so naive, I have to ask the question: What is the difference intellectually between a black and a white in intellectual pursuits? When you educate a person, how does their race enter into it? When you teach someone, why does race even matter? When I look at a child, why do I have to treat a black child differently than a white child? I'm a clown, I don't treat that white child differently than I do that black child. Am I doing something wrong? Should I be treating them differently? I look in their eyes....if one child seems to need more love than another, maybe, or one seems scared of clowns, I react differently, but I don't look at skin color. According to Michelle Obama, I must be doing something wrong.

Of course, I guess that means she's doing her job. She has me thinking that my actions must be racist. She has me thinking of color, when I used to not think of color. How sad. I want my America back. Is this the change you wanted?

Lori Ann Smith

My First Tea Party

Well, I had the experience of my first Tea Party. Does that make me a Tea Partier? I guess I can officially say that they are not violent events. I went to the one in Grand Prairie, TX. Mike Gallagher was there, and the main reason we went. But all the other speakers went over, so Mr. Gallagher only spoke about 3 minutes. He's a very humble man, and didn't want to take up a lot of time.

I saw a lot of signs, but none were racist. I think the best was carried by a black man. It read, "Stop calling me racist." I'm a people watcher. I watch people. It's something that I've just always done. I watch their habits, how they react to things. I can usually tell if they're comfortable, upset, nervous, etc. There were some people milling about, not really knowing what to do. I know not to follow them, because it was my first tea party, and obviously it was their first one, too. You follow someone who looks like they know what they're doing.

The rally was in an open field. We actually went in the VIP area, so there were areas that had seats. They didn't kick us out. There wasn't really any class distinctions. We struck up conversations right away. Even if we didn't fit in economically with some of the VIP crowd, we fit in emotionally. We all had in common our ideals. I was wearing my AsAMom t-shirt and a breast cancer ribbon hat. My sign said, "Will I get to Keep Tricare Prime?" and had pink ribbons on it. The first lady I came up to asked if I was a survivor. She was an 11 year survivor. We talked about health care and the changes I faced.

Later, I met a man who told me that he was told that Tricare wouldn't be affected. I told him about my experience, of emailing Tricare and asking specifically about Prime. I told him how they responded with an explanation of Tricare Standard for Retirees. He felt the same way as I that I got my answer, that I would no longer qualify for Prime. He said, "I wish I had met you a month ago." I met veterans, other moms with pictures of their kids on their signs. I had a picture of my oldest on the other side of my sign. It also said Taxed Enough Already! My oldest wouldn't have been able to handle the crowds, he stayed home with grandpa. My youngest, at 10, had written his own sign. It said, "Come on, it's 4th grade math, if you don't have it don't spend it."

We had a lady come up and ask how old our son was. When I told her he was 10, and came up with his own sign, she said, very sarcastically, "yea, right!" She came up later, and took his picture again, and he said she rolled her eyes at him. I think she must have been a member of the liberal media. She was the only one who was negative that I ran into.

There were people selling things. The food was expensive, but I guess that's capitalism. If you go to a ball game, the food is expensive. I could have gone there for only the $5 parking. We only got a bite to eat. I think they were giving out free literature, I'm not sure. My husband has a bad knee right now, and we didn't move much from where we were. That's probably why he was disappointed. He's a very social person. He would have enjoyed himself more had he gotten to talk to more people.

What surprises me, is that I know people are angry, and that anger didn't really come out. We were all there, we were showing our support, but there wasn't anger. We were all patriotic. They had all the people clap for our active duty soldiers, and had every one who had ever wore the uniform raise their hands. My husband and I got to raise our hands (with the other veterans) while everyone applauded us. Humbling.
It wasn't anti-government. There was a sign that said no fedzilla...but he meant stop big government. We're not anti-government, in the respect that the 60's wanted to destroy GOVERNMENT and replace it with something else. We want to shrink the government we have back down to something that is manageable.

OK. Time for how I've always understood things to be. The local government controls local things...then the states determine what goes on in a broader sense. The federal government is supposed to settle arguments between states and other countries. Since when does the federal government get to decide what I eat as a citizen? I don't even what my town government deciding what I eat. That's like saying you're too stupid to run your own life, we have to step in and do it for you. I want the federal government to run the highways between states and settle arguments between states, commerce between states, and stay out of business that states can decide on their own. If you don't like what's going on in one particular state, move. If enough people move out of that state, it will fail. They'll look at the mass exodus and say, wow, we're doing something wrong, we have to change things.

So, leftists, where is the violence at these meetings? Unless you guys infiltrate and create the violence, there just isn't any. We even cleaned up after ourselves. My son is a boy scout. We left no trace.

Lori Ann Smith

Progresistas en la historia (PART ONE)

(NOTE: This is a reprint of my Socialists in History, in Spanish, part one. Part two will follow as it is translated.)

Progresistas en la historia (PART ONE)

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)


Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Liberty
http://loriann12.blogspot.com

(PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO REPRINT FOR NON-PROFIT AS LONG AS MY NAME REMAINS WITH THIS PUBLICATION.)

The Latest on My Health Care

Well, I blogged recently on my Emergency room visit. I thought I had appendicitis, the day after my husband had been turned down for knee surgery. I had said that I guess God knew what he was doing, in refusing my husband's knee surgery, because that way he got to transport me, instead of us having to call an ambulance. Well, I got the bill today.

You are not going to believe this one. In an effort to be transparent, and prove that the government is out to screw the medical profession, I'm going to post this "government insurance plan" in this blog. I can't imagine what would have happened had I had to use an ambulance and it turned out to be just kidney stones.

Emergency room 594.84
Chemistry 144.02
Hematology 78.30
Urinalysis/Serology 61.94
CT Scans 4,019.24
Total billed 4,898.34

Champus ADJ -3,647.24



What that means, is the hospital has to write off $3647.24. That's the part they don't get paid. That's the part the hospital has to cost shift to someone else. Now, my question is this: If I had walked in with cash, would I have been charged $4,019.34 for a CT? If that's not the case, then that's different. But even then, I don't like the GOVERNMENT telling a hospital, a private industry, how much they can charge for a service. That's communist, not American. That's a government take-over of a private industry, and price-fixing. What isn't everyone up-in-arms about that?

And in case you can't do the math, the GOVERNMENT is reimbursing Baylor Garland at a rate of 19.4%....that's way below the stated rate of 80% that they claim Medicare/Medicaid is reimbursed at. If the hospital has to jack up the price for the government to pay any amount close to what they need, that's wrong. I've heard people in the health care profession say that even if they charged half that amount, the government would reimburse at 19.4%. Let's see, if they decided to charge $2,000 for a CT, would the government allow $388? I had told everyone in a previous blog that my statements averaged 28%...this is gonna drag down my averages.

Do you think if I need more care like that they'll deem me too high risk to keep insurance on me? Maybe they'll start saying they can't do CT's anymore. Maybe the next time they'll say, well, last time it was kidney stones. It must be a kidney stone this time, too. What if it's not? What if next time it actually is an appendix attack? What if they don't look further and jump to conclusions because the test is too expensive and they don't want to get reimbursed at 19.4%? My family will have to sue on my behalf because I'll be dead. Of course that's what they want, it's all population control, and one less voter and blogger against them.

Lori Ann Smith

The Foundation of our Country

Whether certain factions of our nation would like to believe it or not, this nation was founded on Christian principles. There is no national religion, beyond that we worship God, in the way we choose, and don't slight someone who chooses not to, and our law is built around that. In our court houses you can (or could, have they removed them yet?) find the Ten Commandments. If you're not familiar with them you can find them in any Christian Bible.

1. You shall have no other gods besides Me.
2. You shall make no graven image of a god, nor worship it.
3. You shall not misuse the name of your God.
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
5. Honor your Father and Mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's belongings.

The first 4 are between you and God. Number 5 is the only one associated with a promise, and you shall live long. The last 5 are for society. Can you imagine a society that didn't obey the last 5 commandments?

I've been thinking about this administration. They have been instilling themselves into religion as of late. I've been wondering why? Progressives have, for a very long time, been trying to take religion out of our government. We have been fighting it, knowing instinctively that it is the foundation of our government. If you remove the Ten Commandments, and you remove Godly principles, how long will it be before these principles will go away? How long will it be before they can justify their own actions as acceptable?

I have to wonder if that is what they're doing. We get indignant at the corruption currently in Washington. BECAUSE we are familiar with godly principles. What would happen if our standards lowered? IF they were successful in erasing from our memories the fact that our founding fathers were men of God, that would be easier.

They launched on a campaign to do just that in the progressive era. I attended college in the early 80's. I remember my textbooks...lots of footnotes. I have to admit, I didn't read the footnotes, but they were there, should you wish to check out where they got their facts. I recently saw one of the "textbooks" that tore apart the founding fathers as not Christian. Someone flipped through the pages...not a footnote one. That screams opinion. Gee, just like Glenn Beck. I wonder why no one dismissed him as opinion, but believed very word he said?

What would be the next step? Have us believe that it's ok to murder if the government is the one to do it? Gee, that sounds like rationing health care. You don't really need that life saving medical treatment, because you're old and your life has been full. Why don't you step down and let the young people have a chance at life? Or your child is really young, you didn't really get a chance to know her anyway, and you could make another one just like her anyway. The money could go to that 20-something man who contributes so much more to society than your child. We know now that it's not a moral decision, so maybe the government needs to change the moral standards in society.

Society doesn't like redistribution of wealth? Well, get involved in the churches and convince them that Jesus didn't like the rich. Pervert the scriptures to mean something else. They did it back in the early 1900's too. They called them social gospellers. They're baaaaack! Using scriptures like "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven." Do you know what the eye of the needle meant? It was the little door beside the big door in the gate into a city. They would close up the city at night. If you came to a city at night, they would only open the little door and let a man in, not the big door. So you had to leave your camel tied outside. This was so that they wouldn't get invaded. This was an analogy of the small path into heaven. A rich man is usually tied to earth by his riches, thus can't reach the small path to heaven. It didn't mean that because he was rich he couldn't get to heaven. It meant that usually he loved money more than God, so he wouldn't leave his money at the door to go through the little door. He would try to bring it with him and squeeze through the little door with him.

Most Christians I've met, things are just things. We've been blessed and that's great, but if we lose it, oh well, God will either give it back, or He won't. That's where I'm at right now. I've seen plenty and I've seen poor. Right now I'm at poor, and if He leaves me here, fine. I'm hoping he won't but if He does, that's His choice. We're waiting for a second house to sell. If it does, we'll be at the fine place. We have lots of things we need...lots of things we'd like to do with that extra money, including ministry opportunities. President Obama, on the other hand, wants to force charity. He believes every person in America doesn't want to leave that camel at the door when we come in. He thinks every person in the world is a "Mine, mine, mine" sort of person. Who did he grow up with? Sad, sad, sad.

Taking a Stand

Well, finally someone is taking the risk of being called a nut case, and stepping up to the plate and taking a stand. Lt. Col. Lakin (I'm off my page and I'm not sure I spelled that right) is refusing all orders until President Obama proves with his long form birth certificate that he is a citizen of the United States. Now, does this put him in the fringe category? The United States Army could court martial him. If they did, they would have to produce said documentation in the court martial. So the Army is not court martialing him. To date, there has been no reprimand at all. They are not even officially telling him to get a brain scan. They have "unofficially" told him to get a medical exam. But, you see, he was up for orders, so he was fit for transfer to Afghanistan. That means he was fit enough to qualify for overseas duty. He passed on overseas screen. Humm. Now what does that mean?

So, either the military screwed up, and passed an unstable Army guy....again...or he's actually fit and is questioning the government. Now, we can't have that. Either we have free speech, or we don't. If there is nothing to this birth certificate thing, and they prove it and he reports for duty, or Obama actually is pulling the wool over our eyes and he tries to make everything go away.

I have to wonder how this will play out. In the past, how has Obama treated his enemies? He has ridiculed them. So, I predict he'll make the Lt. Col. look like a fool. They'll dig into his record and find something to make him look like a right wing nut. But isn't he with the medical staff? Isn't the medical staff all behind Obama? Well, isn't that interesting?

Are we going to see more of our military dissenting? Where would that leave Obama? Is that why he wants a civilian force behind him? Is that why he's trying to get together his Obama Zombies? You can't brainwash a force that is for America, when you're trying to destroy America, Mr. Obama. Sooner or later, we're gonna realize that what you're doing is actually NOT in our best interests.

You see, my son was born in Hawaii. I have a long form. For confidentiality, I've redacted a lot of it, but here it is:



I've not seen Mr. Obama's, does it look like this? Now granted, it was 37 years earlier...but I'll bet it didn't change that much.

So, will they court martial this Lt. Col. for not following orders? I can't imagine someone getting away with not following the orders of the Commander in Chief. He got ordered to report to Afghanistan. Obama is going to let this slide? If he does, it is basically saying to America, well, I don't want anyone seeing my real birth certificate long form because I have something to hide. Now, I redacted information because my son is 10 and I am a blogger, not the president of the United States. I don't have Secret Service Agents surrounding me day and night to protect me and my family should some nut case decide to do something stupid. He does. What are you afraid of, Mr. President? Are you afraid that we might learn the truth, that you have dual citizenship and aren't qualified for the office you hold? Because that's the only conclusion that can be reached by dragging this out.

If there is a long form that actually proves this is nothing, then show it. Unless, of course, this is all aimed at creating dissension in and of itself. Divide our military and get our military fighting among itself, as well. Another Alynsky tactic. Make our military ineffective. If our illustrious President does nothing, then I suspect the Lt. Col. of being a plant to sow descent. If the President attacks to make him look like a fool, then there's probably something to this birth certificate thing. I guess we'll have to see how all this plays out.

An addition after comments were added to this blog. I have found Obama's birth certificate on Politifact...



It does look exactly like my son's. That is a convincing arguement for me. So perhaps it can be put to rest. We'll still have to see how it plays out. The question would be why a military man would not be court martialed for not following orders if this were so? What would there be to gain? If you let one man get away with not obeying orders, there would be chaos in the military. Is that his goal, then? This man must really hate our military. Discention in the ranks must be put down immediately. If this is the case, and they believe this man is in error, they must put him back in line. Will they?

I have to wonder if this controversy will ever be settled. I just blew up my son's birth certificate as it scanned on this blog. You can plainly see the seal as it scanned. It's a raised seal, you can feel it on the original. On the back, is a stamp that says, I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health, with the state registrar of the time, Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. and the date, Jul 27, 1999. My son was born June 19, 1999. Wonder why it took so long to get his birth certificate? I didn't remember it taking so long. I know I have 3 copies of it.

But does this all matter? Is it more hype to keep us divided? I think we should just put it to rest and stay behind each other. It does not prove anyone is a racist to want proof that he is a natural born citizen. I would want proof if it was McCain. You can not have divided loyalties and serve as President of a country. That is the whole point. He has already said (and I don't mind being corrected because I have not read the book) that he would stand with the Muslims if it came to it. Well, it's coming to it. Mr. President, will you stand with us, or with the Muslims?

________________

Update: April 9, 2010. They say question with boldness and hold on to the truth. Sometimes I wish I just hated the man and flat out refused to believe anything good about him. It would get rid of this bouncing back and forth stuff, and feeling like a yo-yo. You liberals have it so easy. I have to deal with facts, and that's not always easy. I've been to the FactCheck site: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. I think as far as my mind is concerned, I am no longer a birther. I have seen the seal if what they have on their site is indeed Obama's certificate. I guess I just have a better scanner than what they posted on line. Their signature stamp looks exactly like my son's, as does the raised seal. It is a long dashed bump just like what they show. Perhaps he fuzzed it for security reasons? Perhaps he loves a good controversy? Perhaps he wants a good division? I don't know the reason he does anything. I do know that it appears that he is trying to tick off as many groups of people as possible, according to his track record. And I know that he's not a friend of the military. My health insurance (as a veteran) is going up 735%. Anyone with Tricare Prime better read my blog about that. So at least we know we're being fundamentally transformed into Marxism by an American, by birth if not by raising.

Guam will capsize? Time for humor

OK, follow me on this one. We have elected the smartest among us to Represent us. My 5th grader heard the comment by Representative Hank Johnson (GA-D) yesterday about Guam and I haven't been able to stop him from laughing yet. We have come up with the following scenario together: (Warning: this is a bit of a farce!)

What would happen if global warming caused the ocean levels to rise? These Islands are apparently not attached to the ocean floor very well, so they must be like corks, right? I know when the water rises and a cork is lighter than water, it will pop loose. So all these islands will pop loose and be free floating. So, global warming will cause the oceans to rise, because of the ice caps melting, and all of these islands will pop loose from the bottom of the ocean, and be free floating across the ocean.

That was the Honorable Hank Johnson's concern, that adding troops to Guam would cause it to "tip over and capsize," if they all were to go to one side of the island. Of course, if they all could get a big paddle, and hang on tight, and hold their breath, they could be like they were in a canoe and when it did tip, they could right it and do a massive roll over, but I digress. So, which island goes first? But, the oceans rise, the islands start popping off the bottom of the ocean, and start free floating. How far does the ocean have to rise before America pops off? And will it break off at the Panama Canal? Will South America pop off too? Will we become Water World, with all of our continents floating around? Maybe we can strap them together like little life rafts? Did you ever notice the Obama symbol does look a little like the tattoo on the back of the little girl's back? Do we have to hold Obama upside down to get a map back home? Maybe not, but I do know that he's turned my world upside down....but once again, I digress.....SQUIRREL!

Oh, Wow! We will become the Pangaea that we used to be way back millions of years ago, or is it billions, or trillions? We can fit the continents together like a big puzzle. Maybe we can send a submarine down to the bottom of the ocean and look for Atlantis, because there's a hole in the puzzle....remember that's where scientists say that Atlantis fits.

So, global warming has melted all the ice caps, the ocean has risen to the point that all the continents have popped off the floor and are now free floating. I guess we need to keep our nukes so we can move those continents in place. Obama better not disarm. Do you think we can get the other governments to cooperate? Obama wants a one world government, anyway. This would be the step in that direction. Getting all the continents together into one Pangaea land mass. It would definitely cut down on transportation costs. The rest of the ocean would be for pleasure only. We have to decide where to move this mass of continents. How do we all agree? Or do we just set up Obama as king of the world and leave the decision to him? And what would that do to the rotation rate of earth?

Of course, there is no God, so there is no way that He designed the earth with some silly thing like tectonic plates that attach the continents to the earth's crust permanently, islands included. Islands aren't bigger under the water than on top of the water, meaning you could dive under and look up and see the underside of the island. You can't walk out into the ocean....you fall off...and the world is flat. If you sail out far enough you fall off of it.....

So, I guess my idea of strapping all the continents together won't work, just like global warming won't work....the science is faulty. Bummer. SQUIRREL!

Lori Ann Smith

The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways

Well, the Lord works in Mysterious Ways, ways that are not known to you or me. My husband had knee surgery scheduled for day before yesterday. He had thrown out his knee a couple weeks ago. The orthopedic surgeon said he tore cartilage and they planned on going in and trimming all the damaged cartilage with a scope. He wasn't really supposed to be laid up more than a day.

We get there and, get him all hooked up to the IV and his blood pressure was 156/109 and the anesthesiologist won't put him out. They canceled surgery. He was upset, but I told him, maybe there's a reason that God doesn't want you to have surgery today.

Well, yesterday I found out the reason. At about 4:10 I was on the phone with my mother who is in Missouri. I felt a little twinge in my side, and was trying to ignore it. My husband called and as I was talking to him and it got worse. It was right where my appendix is....oh, yea. I told him it was probably nothing and I was going to see if it went away when I laid down. About 15 minutes later it was excruciating. On a scale of 1-10, I'd say it was a 10.5. My husband gets off work at 4:30 and I called at what I thought was 4:25, but it turned out to be 4:35 and he was putting his tools away. I told him to hurry home because he was taking me to the emergency room. I thought I had appendicitis.

We called his parents to meet us at the ER to pick up the kids. After signing in (and I don't know if they could read my handwriting on the form), I was taken to a room. As soon as my body hit the bed, the pain went away. Well, I'm thinking, guess it's not appendicitis. After a couple hours, and an IV and urine sample, and CT's of my abdomen, they determined that I passed a kidney stone with 2 more pending. Oh yea. I possibly get to go through this again.

But, the miracle in all this is that if my husband had gone through his knee surgery, I would have had to call an ambulance. Who knows if my insurance would have covered it? I've already blogged that they're shuffling me off into Standard for retirees, and I'll possibly be paying 20% of everything in addition to a 735% increase in premiums. Glad this happened before that takes affect. My new premium is coming due pretty soon, not exactly sure when. Possibly in June.

Bottom line? Look for your every day miracles. They're out there.

Lori Ann Smith