Monday, June 28, 2010
A Lesson From My Parents
I originally sent this just to my parents, but they've given me permission to post it on my blog. I never really thought much about what I post until recently, when my mom made the comment that her life was posted on my Face Book. I do that because I ask my friends for prayer requests, but her sister finds out and then calls her and asks for ALL the details and then chews her out for not telling her. Mom's not one for calling anyone on the phone and telling them all the details of her life.
But, I digress. I sent my Dad an email, sort of like a short blog, telling him how I appreciate him, and in addition my mom. I couldn't find a card that said what I wanted it to say. Mom paid me, I guess, the highest compliment. She said it was like the Hallmark cards I had always found in the past that seemed to say just what I wanted it to say.
Well, we had an argument with a friend in church this morning. It made one of the facts of my letter to may dad stand out for me, so I decided to post it here. I had originally told Dad I wouldn't, but they said they didn't mind. So, first, the letter for Father's Day:
______________
Dad,
I was trying to remember what all you've taught me over the years. Never put the ice cube trays back empty. Always give a firm handshake. No one likes a dead-fish handshake. Always tell the truth, even when it's inconvenient to do so. Never start a fight, but if someone else does, you fight like hell to finish it. Never let a bully get his way, or he'll try to get everything from you. Be decisive, and once you've made a decision, stand your ground. But if the situation changes and new facts come out, be brave enough to correct mistakes if there are any. A mistake because of wrong facts is not a character flaw. Refusing to bend because of new facts is a character flaw.
Did you teach me these by words? No. You taught me these by your actions over the years. You, together with mom, have been the reason for my strength. God knew exactly what He was doing when He gave me my parents.
Happy Father's Day
________________
My lesson for today is the last one. Sometimes we all make a decision based on the information we have at hand, believing it to be the best decision we can make. But then new facts may come out that prove that decision to be wrong. It takes a very big person to admit they made a mistake because of wrong facts. It means that they were duped, basically. It's hard not to put the blame on someone else. You have to come out and say, "You know what, I know I really championed this opinion, but I discovered new facts, and I'm reversing my opinion." What you need to stand for more than pride is the truth.
I can give you an example from my own past. I was raised a Democrat. But I am a Christian. When I started paying attention to politics, I realized that their platform didn't conform to my values. I am pro-life. The Democrats are for abortion. I can't support a candidate that votes for pro-choice policies. I also believe in one man/one woman in marriage. They support gay rights. I believe that low government spending is needed and that we need to cut taxes in order give the people a reason to spend the money they have. If you raise taxes, people won't spend it in the economy. The Democrats are for raising taxes in error thinking that it puts more money in the government. It makes people lose jobs. You can't get money into the government coffers if people don't have jobs. Instead you're paying them unemployment...it's leaving the government coffers. So I fixed my mistake...I switched to Republican so I could vote for the right people in office. I just can't reconcile my faith with voting Democrat.
I have to admit, my dad may not have made this leap yet....from Democrat to Republican, but he has taught me the lesson of correcting mistakes. He has become an Independent. His lessons of correcting mistakes may not have been in the political arena, but they're there. The point was, there are people out there who should be asking themselves that same question. Why do I vote the way I do? What are my values and does the Democratic party represent that? If the Democratic party does indeed represent you, great, by all means get behind their candidate. But don't come crying to us, who don't want a Marxist USA, when that's what we get. Don't come crying to the 1/3 who are fighting with pen and keyboard to keep the red, white and blue flying and the blood out of the streets, when this nation falls. It's going to come down to taking sides. You're going to have to pick a side, and it's not really Democrat or Republican anymore. The Democrats aren't my dad's party anymore.
You have to read between the lines, though. "We support women in the workforce, getting women in high offices" is not always a good thing. If you're for women's rights, shouldn't you also be for women's right to stay home? They're tearing our families apart with anti-family laws. Supporting all black colleges is supporting segregation. Shouldn't you be for getting the colleges on equal footing and integrated so there's no difference? Why not work on getting our black hero's taught in the school system? It was the Democrats who removed them, after all?
I say we have a call for truth in platforms. They don't actually list what they pass legislation on. It doesn't list on their platform anywhere that they are pro-choice, pro-gay agenda, pro-raising taxes to pay for things, because you would never vote for that. You have to stay off the propaganda site and go to Thomas.gov and look at what bills have actually been passed by Democrats vs Republicans. You have to get books written on history and see that no civil rights bill during the civil war was passed by a Democrat PERIOD including a PRESIDENT.
Like I said, it takes a strong person to reverse a decision. I reversed mine over 20 years ago. Do you know Democrats who haven't read David Barton's Black and White? I was told by my friend that if I handed that out to the black community, it would get me killed. I don't know if he meant because I'm white, or just that things are that bad. He said the only reason he let us (my husband and me) slide is because we're friends and we were in church. He also knows we can have political discussions and agree to disagree. So is it a pride thing? I'm asking anyone out there to be strong like my dad taught me. It's not a character flaw to correct a mistake because of new facts. Help me get these facts out. WE, who haven't been taught about the heroes of America, need to learn about them, even if they were purple with orange stripes. Not because of some validation stupid crap. But because they were good men who need to be told about. Don't dis' their memory.
Lori Ann Smith
But, I digress. I sent my Dad an email, sort of like a short blog, telling him how I appreciate him, and in addition my mom. I couldn't find a card that said what I wanted it to say. Mom paid me, I guess, the highest compliment. She said it was like the Hallmark cards I had always found in the past that seemed to say just what I wanted it to say.
Well, we had an argument with a friend in church this morning. It made one of the facts of my letter to may dad stand out for me, so I decided to post it here. I had originally told Dad I wouldn't, but they said they didn't mind. So, first, the letter for Father's Day:
______________
Dad,
I was trying to remember what all you've taught me over the years. Never put the ice cube trays back empty. Always give a firm handshake. No one likes a dead-fish handshake. Always tell the truth, even when it's inconvenient to do so. Never start a fight, but if someone else does, you fight like hell to finish it. Never let a bully get his way, or he'll try to get everything from you. Be decisive, and once you've made a decision, stand your ground. But if the situation changes and new facts come out, be brave enough to correct mistakes if there are any. A mistake because of wrong facts is not a character flaw. Refusing to bend because of new facts is a character flaw.
Did you teach me these by words? No. You taught me these by your actions over the years. You, together with mom, have been the reason for my strength. God knew exactly what He was doing when He gave me my parents.
Happy Father's Day
________________
My lesson for today is the last one. Sometimes we all make a decision based on the information we have at hand, believing it to be the best decision we can make. But then new facts may come out that prove that decision to be wrong. It takes a very big person to admit they made a mistake because of wrong facts. It means that they were duped, basically. It's hard not to put the blame on someone else. You have to come out and say, "You know what, I know I really championed this opinion, but I discovered new facts, and I'm reversing my opinion." What you need to stand for more than pride is the truth.
I can give you an example from my own past. I was raised a Democrat. But I am a Christian. When I started paying attention to politics, I realized that their platform didn't conform to my values. I am pro-life. The Democrats are for abortion. I can't support a candidate that votes for pro-choice policies. I also believe in one man/one woman in marriage. They support gay rights. I believe that low government spending is needed and that we need to cut taxes in order give the people a reason to spend the money they have. If you raise taxes, people won't spend it in the economy. The Democrats are for raising taxes in error thinking that it puts more money in the government. It makes people lose jobs. You can't get money into the government coffers if people don't have jobs. Instead you're paying them unemployment...it's leaving the government coffers. So I fixed my mistake...I switched to Republican so I could vote for the right people in office. I just can't reconcile my faith with voting Democrat.
I have to admit, my dad may not have made this leap yet....from Democrat to Republican, but he has taught me the lesson of correcting mistakes. He has become an Independent. His lessons of correcting mistakes may not have been in the political arena, but they're there. The point was, there are people out there who should be asking themselves that same question. Why do I vote the way I do? What are my values and does the Democratic party represent that? If the Democratic party does indeed represent you, great, by all means get behind their candidate. But don't come crying to us, who don't want a Marxist USA, when that's what we get. Don't come crying to the 1/3 who are fighting with pen and keyboard to keep the red, white and blue flying and the blood out of the streets, when this nation falls. It's going to come down to taking sides. You're going to have to pick a side, and it's not really Democrat or Republican anymore. The Democrats aren't my dad's party anymore.
You have to read between the lines, though. "We support women in the workforce, getting women in high offices" is not always a good thing. If you're for women's rights, shouldn't you also be for women's right to stay home? They're tearing our families apart with anti-family laws. Supporting all black colleges is supporting segregation. Shouldn't you be for getting the colleges on equal footing and integrated so there's no difference? Why not work on getting our black hero's taught in the school system? It was the Democrats who removed them, after all?
I say we have a call for truth in platforms. They don't actually list what they pass legislation on. It doesn't list on their platform anywhere that they are pro-choice, pro-gay agenda, pro-raising taxes to pay for things, because you would never vote for that. You have to stay off the propaganda site and go to Thomas.gov and look at what bills have actually been passed by Democrats vs Republicans. You have to get books written on history and see that no civil rights bill during the civil war was passed by a Democrat PERIOD including a PRESIDENT.
Like I said, it takes a strong person to reverse a decision. I reversed mine over 20 years ago. Do you know Democrats who haven't read David Barton's Black and White? I was told by my friend that if I handed that out to the black community, it would get me killed. I don't know if he meant because I'm white, or just that things are that bad. He said the only reason he let us (my husband and me) slide is because we're friends and we were in church. He also knows we can have political discussions and agree to disagree. So is it a pride thing? I'm asking anyone out there to be strong like my dad taught me. It's not a character flaw to correct a mistake because of new facts. Help me get these facts out. WE, who haven't been taught about the heroes of America, need to learn about them, even if they were purple with orange stripes. Not because of some validation stupid crap. But because they were good men who need to be told about. Don't dis' their memory.
Lori Ann Smith
Friday, June 25, 2010
Strike While The Iron is Hot
I'm going to do something I never thought I'd ever do. I'm going to agree with Nancy Pelosi. Now hold on a minute...don't call out the guys with the I-love-me jackets - hear me out:
Remember her little video where she talked about her favorite word being The Word? She meant the Word of God. Remember how she stumbled through that little speech because we all know she didn't mean a word of it? I've been thinking. What is the best way to take the wind out of some one's sails? Agree with them. We're going about this the wrong way. We get all indignant: "Well, what about your separation of church and state, now?"
Change tactics, people! Strike while the iron is hot, Republicans! Now is the time to submit legislation to put prayer back in school! What can Pelosi say? The Word is her favorite word! How can she be against children carrying Bibles to school? She has asked people to pray for Cap and Trade, how can she be against prayer in school?
Let's reverse all those decisions to get the Ten Commandments out of our Courts! The Speaker of the House just about blew the separation of church and state out of the water! Let's make a commercial and string together all her sound bites of God or the Bible or The Word and use it against her.
We know they have their own version of religion, but we also have the wording of the First Amendment. They can not establish a National Religion. They can't pick one sect or denomination over another one. Face it, that includes making this nation into a MUSLIM nation against our will!
If our children aren't allowed to pray, why do Muslim children get to pray? Prayer is prayer. If Christian children can't pray, then Muslim children shouldn't be allowed to pray either. Period. I don't care if it's means their soul. It means my soul, too. You want Muslim children praying in school, they you have to allow ALL prayer in school or it's discrimination, pure, plain and simple.
WORD.
Lori Ann Smith
Remember her little video where she talked about her favorite word being The Word? She meant the Word of God. Remember how she stumbled through that little speech because we all know she didn't mean a word of it? I've been thinking. What is the best way to take the wind out of some one's sails? Agree with them. We're going about this the wrong way. We get all indignant: "Well, what about your separation of church and state, now?"
Change tactics, people! Strike while the iron is hot, Republicans! Now is the time to submit legislation to put prayer back in school! What can Pelosi say? The Word is her favorite word! How can she be against children carrying Bibles to school? She has asked people to pray for Cap and Trade, how can she be against prayer in school?
Let's reverse all those decisions to get the Ten Commandments out of our Courts! The Speaker of the House just about blew the separation of church and state out of the water! Let's make a commercial and string together all her sound bites of God or the Bible or The Word and use it against her.
We know they have their own version of religion, but we also have the wording of the First Amendment. They can not establish a National Religion. They can't pick one sect or denomination over another one. Face it, that includes making this nation into a MUSLIM nation against our will!
If our children aren't allowed to pray, why do Muslim children get to pray? Prayer is prayer. If Christian children can't pray, then Muslim children shouldn't be allowed to pray either. Period. I don't care if it's means their soul. It means my soul, too. You want Muslim children praying in school, they you have to allow ALL prayer in school or it's discrimination, pure, plain and simple.
WORD.
Lori Ann Smith
Ahh, the smell of chest nuts roasting...
Can't you just smell chestnuts roasting on an open fire? Hear the fire crackling? Envision the tinsel on the tree? Thinking those thoughts roaming through your head of what to buy for your loved one....what? Is it too early? Well, I just got an email from an Aunt of mine who is geared up for a battle. Let me explain.
I sort of agree with her, so let me lay out her battle plan first. To do her justice, I will include her whole email:
________________
I have just waged all out war on hobby lobby, if you would like to help me it would be nice. This morning I went to their store and there was the manager putting up all the Christmas deco., when I told him I thought it was a little early he informed me that it should have been up two months earlier and they were behind. I told him that stores like this are ruining the holidays and taking away all the meaning , he said that we have 'SO MANY DESIGNERS' in our area that they need all this time to get ready. I told him they could order what they need from hobby lobby's warehouse and he said sorry. That's when I told him I'd never shop there again and I stormed over to our local newspaper office. They were sorry about everything,but said that they have every right to ruin our holidays and if I would like to write a letter to the editor I could even though it might not be published. There was a time when the American people ran this country but we have become so lazy that we don't even try anymore. This may seem silly to you, and if you want to sit on your butts and let some store named "hobby lobby" rape and desecrate our nations traditions then don't forward this to your friends and family. In a world where we seem to have so little control, maybe we could stand up for something just this one time. There was once a time when the American house wife was the powerful person in America, she would write letters, boycott and and gather her friends and they could bring a corp. to its knees. Please at least forward this. Pat Waldo.
_______________
Now. My take on this. This is another example of the Obama-zombie mentality. This is another example of the minority ruling the majority. I believe the majority are probably comfortable with Christmas decorations going up right after Thanksgiving. Come on, how many people need stuff for making Christmas things? The people who "make" things for Christmas really can shop off the Hobby Lobby on-line store. It can't be more than 30% of the population. This is another example of 30% ruling our nation. When are we going to stand up and not let this happen? It's no different than health care being crammed down our throats when 70% of America didn't want it. And this guy said he was 2 MONTHS late? That means they should have put it out in April? Come on, that is really ridiculous. Why don't we have Christmas stuff out all year long? That's Easter, for Pete's sake.
My mom had a saying (which Aunt Pat is her sister-in-law), if you do something all the time, it's not special anymore. If you save something for a special occasion, but then decide to do it every week, it's not special anymore. I challenge you to find something that's your favorite thing to do. Maybe it's a cappuccino. Something that you reward yourself with when you do a good job. But do it everyday. Suddenly, it's not a reward anymore.
You want to know how I know this? I did it. I was taking a college class on line (actually 3 at one time....it was hard at my age). I decided to study at Starbuck's because I LOVE coffee. I went 3-4 times a week, and ordered a mocha every time. Yep, it got expensive, but we were doing OK, at the time. I love mocha's, and it was a treat in the beginning. It used to be how I treated myself. But after 3-4 times a week, they became not so much a treat anymore. They became common place. They weren't so special anymore. After a while I realized this and I switched to house coffee and only had a mocha once a week.
Did you ever stop to think maybe that's what they're doing to Christmas? Maybe they want to flood the market with Christmas, and by extension God, so that He's not so special anymore? And it's not just this administration. It's been happening for a long, long time. Probably since the 1960's. 1963, to be exact, when they got prayer taking out of school.
I say, since Pelosi is talking about her favorite word being "the Word," that we strike while the iron is hot. Let's start a campaign to bring God back into the schools; back into the work place; back into Congress; back into our court systems. And let's keep Christmas in December. Christ's birth is celebrated in December. Period.
Thank you Aunt Pat for taking a stand.
Lori Ann Smith
I sort of agree with her, so let me lay out her battle plan first. To do her justice, I will include her whole email:
________________
I have just waged all out war on hobby lobby, if you would like to help me it would be nice. This morning I went to their store and there was the manager putting up all the Christmas deco., when I told him I thought it was a little early he informed me that it should have been up two months earlier and they were behind. I told him that stores like this are ruining the holidays and taking away all the meaning , he said that we have 'SO MANY DESIGNERS' in our area that they need all this time to get ready. I told him they could order what they need from hobby lobby's warehouse and he said sorry. That's when I told him I'd never shop there again and I stormed over to our local newspaper office. They were sorry about everything,but said that they have every right to ruin our holidays and if I would like to write a letter to the editor I could even though it might not be published. There was a time when the American people ran this country but we have become so lazy that we don't even try anymore. This may seem silly to you, and if you want to sit on your butts and let some store named "hobby lobby" rape and desecrate our nations traditions then don't forward this to your friends and family. In a world where we seem to have so little control, maybe we could stand up for something just this one time. There was once a time when the American house wife was the powerful person in America, she would write letters, boycott and and gather her friends and they could bring a corp. to its knees. Please at least forward this. Pat Waldo.
_______________
Now. My take on this. This is another example of the Obama-zombie mentality. This is another example of the minority ruling the majority. I believe the majority are probably comfortable with Christmas decorations going up right after Thanksgiving. Come on, how many people need stuff for making Christmas things? The people who "make" things for Christmas really can shop off the Hobby Lobby on-line store. It can't be more than 30% of the population. This is another example of 30% ruling our nation. When are we going to stand up and not let this happen? It's no different than health care being crammed down our throats when 70% of America didn't want it. And this guy said he was 2 MONTHS late? That means they should have put it out in April? Come on, that is really ridiculous. Why don't we have Christmas stuff out all year long? That's Easter, for Pete's sake.
My mom had a saying (which Aunt Pat is her sister-in-law), if you do something all the time, it's not special anymore. If you save something for a special occasion, but then decide to do it every week, it's not special anymore. I challenge you to find something that's your favorite thing to do. Maybe it's a cappuccino. Something that you reward yourself with when you do a good job. But do it everyday. Suddenly, it's not a reward anymore.
You want to know how I know this? I did it. I was taking a college class on line (actually 3 at one time....it was hard at my age). I decided to study at Starbuck's because I LOVE coffee. I went 3-4 times a week, and ordered a mocha every time. Yep, it got expensive, but we were doing OK, at the time. I love mocha's, and it was a treat in the beginning. It used to be how I treated myself. But after 3-4 times a week, they became not so much a treat anymore. They became common place. They weren't so special anymore. After a while I realized this and I switched to house coffee and only had a mocha once a week.
Did you ever stop to think maybe that's what they're doing to Christmas? Maybe they want to flood the market with Christmas, and by extension God, so that He's not so special anymore? And it's not just this administration. It's been happening for a long, long time. Probably since the 1960's. 1963, to be exact, when they got prayer taking out of school.
I say, since Pelosi is talking about her favorite word being "the Word," that we strike while the iron is hot. Let's start a campaign to bring God back into the schools; back into the work place; back into Congress; back into our court systems. And let's keep Christmas in December. Christ's birth is celebrated in December. Period.
Thank you Aunt Pat for taking a stand.
Lori Ann Smith
City of Garland, TX getting out of Control
Well, now I've had it. I can understand the need for city ordinances, I suppose. Some are for safety reasons. I do believe they are getting out of hand. I blogged on this before. We had a 12 inch snow here in Garland, Texas and had an over-zealous city worker decide to go out and apparently hit everyone one in my neighborhood for city violations on that day. My hit was for not having my house marked with 3 inch letters in the alley. Apparently there's a city ordinance that if you have an access in the rear of your house, it has to be marked with your house numbers. Since we had 12 inches of snow, it was COVERED WITH SNOW and couldn't be seen. I'm sorry, I didn't get out and SHOVEL IT OFF. I sent her a border-line nasty email, that if she went out to my alley, located my American flags, and looked directly below it, she would find my house numbers. They had been there since I bought the house almost a year ago.
Well, now I got a hit on the tree in my front yard. I have a really nice and large crepe myrtle. I actually didn't know a crepe myrtle could get this big. It's about 14 ft high, maybe 13. I'm from Missouri originally and I've only seen them about 8-10 ft high. It blooms late, compared to the rest of the neighborhood, but it's pretty. So we got a notice that it hangs too low. They wanted it trimmed to 8 ft off the sidewalk, and I could have sworn it said 8 ft off the street. So the SAME DAY that I got the notice, I was out with a manual tree trimmer, trimming my tree back. I don't know if you've seen those or not, it's a long stick that has a saw with a clip on it to clip smaller branches. I didn't actually measure it, I have to admit. I'm 5'5. I trimmed until I couldn't reach it by jumping. I know what an 8ft ceiling looks like. I put up Christmas trees. I piled everything up on the side of the street like I was supposed to do.
Yesterday I get another notice. It wasn't good enough. Apparently they got out a tape measure and actually measured it and it wasn't exactly 8 ft. We got hit for over the sidewalk not being 8 ft, and now they want it 14 ft off the street. And now there's a notice saying that if we don't take care of it "The City will take actions to correct the violations and shall place a lien against your property to recover incurred costs. Additionally municipal court tickets may be issued for non-compliance." EXCUSE ME? I did comply. I cut my tree back TWICE! We called the LADY, and believe me I use that term very loosely, and left a message that the WHOLE TREE ISN'T 14 FOOT TALL. We said to cut the tree back anymore would mean removing the whole thing.
We're tempted to cut it back to a stump and leave a notice on it saying that this is a result of the city of Garland, and leave her name, which is by the way, Deena Williams, saying that they intend to PLACE A LIEN ON OUR HOUSE because we didn't cut it back far enough.
And the bite in all this? Two houses down is another crepe myrtle in full bloom, shorter, hanging over the street and sidewalk even further than ours was. When my husband called her to leave a message he wanted to know if that house got hit. I want to know if their tree is going to get trimmed by the city and a lien put on their house for recouping the cost?
This is nothing short of bullying to get us out of the neighborhood. I call it racism. We are one of the few white faces in this neighborhood. If everyone else can play the race card, why can't I? Maybe it's because I'm a republican. Maybe it's because I made a stand for my country. But, you see, I'm not a victim like everyone one else. Even though they try real hard to make one a victim. I'm a fighter. And a little bit of a smart Alec. I'm more for taking the whole tree down. I see where they're coming from. My property starts on the other side of the sidewalk, so they feel they have a "right" to do whatever they want. So I have a right to cut the tree down and make it look ugly. I didn't plant it, so I'm not attached to it. My neighbor across the alley did stop and help me trim it, but that was before I saw the lien notice. I wasn't worked up. He claims Deena is a nice lady if you get to know her. I claim, I don't want to get to know her. Not if she's gonna put a lien on my house for not trimming a tree enough the first time. She sounds like my MIL....nothing is ever good enough....a control freak. Another government official with a little power that went to her head.
We have got to shrink ALL government All government in these United States have gotten too big. It's a total shame when the largest employer is the government. When government jobs make more money than the private sector for the same job. Shrink the monster before they take all our property away.
Well, now I got a hit on the tree in my front yard. I have a really nice and large crepe myrtle. I actually didn't know a crepe myrtle could get this big. It's about 14 ft high, maybe 13. I'm from Missouri originally and I've only seen them about 8-10 ft high. It blooms late, compared to the rest of the neighborhood, but it's pretty. So we got a notice that it hangs too low. They wanted it trimmed to 8 ft off the sidewalk, and I could have sworn it said 8 ft off the street. So the SAME DAY that I got the notice, I was out with a manual tree trimmer, trimming my tree back. I don't know if you've seen those or not, it's a long stick that has a saw with a clip on it to clip smaller branches. I didn't actually measure it, I have to admit. I'm 5'5. I trimmed until I couldn't reach it by jumping. I know what an 8ft ceiling looks like. I put up Christmas trees. I piled everything up on the side of the street like I was supposed to do.
Yesterday I get another notice. It wasn't good enough. Apparently they got out a tape measure and actually measured it and it wasn't exactly 8 ft. We got hit for over the sidewalk not being 8 ft, and now they want it 14 ft off the street. And now there's a notice saying that if we don't take care of it "The City will take actions to correct the violations and shall place a lien against your property to recover incurred costs. Additionally municipal court tickets may be issued for non-compliance." EXCUSE ME? I did comply. I cut my tree back TWICE! We called the LADY, and believe me I use that term very loosely, and left a message that the WHOLE TREE ISN'T 14 FOOT TALL. We said to cut the tree back anymore would mean removing the whole thing.
We're tempted to cut it back to a stump and leave a notice on it saying that this is a result of the city of Garland, and leave her name, which is by the way, Deena Williams, saying that they intend to PLACE A LIEN ON OUR HOUSE because we didn't cut it back far enough.
And the bite in all this? Two houses down is another crepe myrtle in full bloom, shorter, hanging over the street and sidewalk even further than ours was. When my husband called her to leave a message he wanted to know if that house got hit. I want to know if their tree is going to get trimmed by the city and a lien put on their house for recouping the cost?
This is nothing short of bullying to get us out of the neighborhood. I call it racism. We are one of the few white faces in this neighborhood. If everyone else can play the race card, why can't I? Maybe it's because I'm a republican. Maybe it's because I made a stand for my country. But, you see, I'm not a victim like everyone one else. Even though they try real hard to make one a victim. I'm a fighter. And a little bit of a smart Alec. I'm more for taking the whole tree down. I see where they're coming from. My property starts on the other side of the sidewalk, so they feel they have a "right" to do whatever they want. So I have a right to cut the tree down and make it look ugly. I didn't plant it, so I'm not attached to it. My neighbor across the alley did stop and help me trim it, but that was before I saw the lien notice. I wasn't worked up. He claims Deena is a nice lady if you get to know her. I claim, I don't want to get to know her. Not if she's gonna put a lien on my house for not trimming a tree enough the first time. She sounds like my MIL....nothing is ever good enough....a control freak. Another government official with a little power that went to her head.
We have got to shrink ALL government All government in these United States have gotten too big. It's a total shame when the largest employer is the government. When government jobs make more money than the private sector for the same job. Shrink the monster before they take all our property away.
Monday, June 21, 2010
God's Sandpaper
Have you ever run into those people that just irritate the dookie out of you? I'm talking the ones that you try your hardest to get along with but there is no way on this side of heaven that you can. They seem to know every button to push on your irritation scale. They know exactly how to get a reaction out of you. They know exactly how to get you to blow your witness every single time.
Maybe they're the ones who are the atheist and are always trying to prove there is no God, and point to every single time you are inconsistent. Maybe they're the ones who claim to be a Christian, and yet don't show it, but send you every Christian thing they can in the email and point out YOUR faults while they are blind to their own faults. Maybe they are nasty to you behind everyone else's back, but then when other people are around, are nice to you. So people think you are the one being petty.
I had a wise friend a long time ago who called these types of people God's Sandpaper. I asked this person why God allowed them to stay among us, ruining our witness, making us blow our witness time and time again, causing people to disbelieve, and just generally wreaking havoc. She told me that even though the Bible warns us (and no, I don't know chapter and verse) that if you test the Lord too long, he will bring you home. I suppose the pre-supposes you are His. So I've comforted myself with the thought that, 1) these people that antagonize me do not belong to Him, even though they profess to, and 2) the Lord knows what He's doing.
Think about what sandpaper does. It shapes things into something else. Usually something very beautiful in the hands of a master craftsman. But something definitely smoother and refined. That is what God is doing to us, when he uses something rough (the person who has no tact and is obtuse) as they rub us the wrong way. Our reaction is what the world is looking at. I've often wondered if God will continue to bring these "sandpaper" people into my life until I learn to deal with them in a way that is pleasing to him?
I'm afraid with my reactions, it may be a long time before I don't have to deal with God's sandpaper people. I have a lot to learn yet. I still let them get to me. Here's praying that y'all deal with them better than I do.
Lori Ann Smith
Maybe they're the ones who are the atheist and are always trying to prove there is no God, and point to every single time you are inconsistent. Maybe they're the ones who claim to be a Christian, and yet don't show it, but send you every Christian thing they can in the email and point out YOUR faults while they are blind to their own faults. Maybe they are nasty to you behind everyone else's back, but then when other people are around, are nice to you. So people think you are the one being petty.
I had a wise friend a long time ago who called these types of people God's Sandpaper. I asked this person why God allowed them to stay among us, ruining our witness, making us blow our witness time and time again, causing people to disbelieve, and just generally wreaking havoc. She told me that even though the Bible warns us (and no, I don't know chapter and verse) that if you test the Lord too long, he will bring you home. I suppose the pre-supposes you are His. So I've comforted myself with the thought that, 1) these people that antagonize me do not belong to Him, even though they profess to, and 2) the Lord knows what He's doing.
Think about what sandpaper does. It shapes things into something else. Usually something very beautiful in the hands of a master craftsman. But something definitely smoother and refined. That is what God is doing to us, when he uses something rough (the person who has no tact and is obtuse) as they rub us the wrong way. Our reaction is what the world is looking at. I've often wondered if God will continue to bring these "sandpaper" people into my life until I learn to deal with them in a way that is pleasing to him?
I'm afraid with my reactions, it may be a long time before I don't have to deal with God's sandpaper people. I have a lot to learn yet. I still let them get to me. Here's praying that y'all deal with them better than I do.
Lori Ann Smith
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Fuel Options
I'm still wading through Agenda 21. I'm in section 11, Combating Deforestation. It's an interesting section. There are several sections I found interesting, which tie in to how President Obama is treating America right now. You will have to read this, though, with a little background first.
I want you to hold in the forefront of your memory the words of our President. I don't have his exact quote, but remember when he said something to the effect that under his energy plan, energy costs would necessarily sky-rocket. Another thing to keep in mind is that President Obama is going to make sure that an oil disaster like this never happens again. He also made the statement during his campaign, or possibly when he first came into office, that he was going to shut down coal production in the U.S.
Gee, what does that leave for fuel? Natural Gas? I believe there have been several explosions in natural gas plants. Wow, they're not safe, either. And I know of a couple nuclear plants that had close calls recently. Every one knows they're not safe. Can you say 3 Mile Island? So, how are we going to heat our houses RIGHT NOW? What are we going to do?
Agenda 21 to the rescue. they actually promote the use of TREES for FUEL AND ENERGY! Now you would think the tree huggers would be against this, but they are going to use it as a way to redistribute wealth, so the environmentalists will be behind it. Well, maybe the TRUE ecologists won't, but they'll be called nuts. The Agenda 21 people want us in the stone age and using fire places to keep warm because the animals have priority over humans. I have to admit, though, back in high school, I had a boyfriend who had a wood burning stove tied in to his central heating unit. But it supplemented it, and was not the only source of heat.
This is how Agenda 21 lays it out. 11.22(c): "To promote more efficient and sustainable use of forests and trees for fuel wood and energy supplies."
But their plan doesn't stop there. Remember, they've already made plans to jack up oil prices for the developed countries. This was stated in 2.22 (g): "Ensure that special factors affecting environment and trade policies in the developing countries are borne in mind in the application if environmental standards, as well as in the use of any trade measures. It is worth noting that standards that are valid in most advanced countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries."
Back to section 11: In 11.23(e) "Promoting and supporting the downstream processing of forest products to increase retained value and other benefits." And in 11.20 (C) "Promoting efficient utilization and assessment to recover the full valuation of the goods and services provided by forests, forest lands and woodlands."
So, they want to raise the price of wood, after it becomes the only means of fuel. Every indication I have seen puts President Obama on the Agenda 21 bandwagon. Obama will raise the price of oil because he will eliminate our ability to create our own oil, thus making us dependant on foreign oil and the price they set. He will raise the price of coal beyond the ability of people to afford it. That will affect our choices. I believe in the future, the same thing will happen to natural gas. There will be an increase in disasters in gas companies if we don't get this man out of office, just as there have been on oil rigs. He will be forced to regulate it out of business. If that doesn't happen, we have his own words....energy costs will necessarily sky-rocket. So everyone turns to their fireplace to heat their home. People will go and buy "Franklin Stoves" and put it in their house. that's when they strike to protect the forest and make sure the forest gets replanted. Wood and all products associated with the forest will get "full value." Who determines the full value? And they list what is considered other than fuel wood: 11.23(f) ...(e.g. medicinal plants, dyes, fibres, gums, resins, fodder, cultural products, rattan, bamboo)...
Is there anything that doesn't cover? That covers our medicines, our clothes that are dyed, our clothes that are natural fibres, anything made with glue, animal food, so our farm life, wow, so many things.
Who has the most forest land? I would venture to say it's not going to be developed countries. It won't be Americans buying wood from American forests. I would bet that we'll be forced to send off to South American Rain Forests for our wood. Or maybe they'll develop some genetically engineered tree that grows really fast, plant it on an Indian reservation and "Give them the wealth, give them the wealth!" a la Van Jones!
Lori Ann Smith
I want you to hold in the forefront of your memory the words of our President. I don't have his exact quote, but remember when he said something to the effect that under his energy plan, energy costs would necessarily sky-rocket. Another thing to keep in mind is that President Obama is going to make sure that an oil disaster like this never happens again. He also made the statement during his campaign, or possibly when he first came into office, that he was going to shut down coal production in the U.S.
Gee, what does that leave for fuel? Natural Gas? I believe there have been several explosions in natural gas plants. Wow, they're not safe, either. And I know of a couple nuclear plants that had close calls recently. Every one knows they're not safe. Can you say 3 Mile Island? So, how are we going to heat our houses RIGHT NOW? What are we going to do?
Agenda 21 to the rescue. they actually promote the use of TREES for FUEL AND ENERGY! Now you would think the tree huggers would be against this, but they are going to use it as a way to redistribute wealth, so the environmentalists will be behind it. Well, maybe the TRUE ecologists won't, but they'll be called nuts. The Agenda 21 people want us in the stone age and using fire places to keep warm because the animals have priority over humans. I have to admit, though, back in high school, I had a boyfriend who had a wood burning stove tied in to his central heating unit. But it supplemented it, and was not the only source of heat.
This is how Agenda 21 lays it out. 11.22(c): "To promote more efficient and sustainable use of forests and trees for fuel wood and energy supplies."
But their plan doesn't stop there. Remember, they've already made plans to jack up oil prices for the developed countries. This was stated in 2.22 (g): "Ensure that special factors affecting environment and trade policies in the developing countries are borne in mind in the application if environmental standards, as well as in the use of any trade measures. It is worth noting that standards that are valid in most advanced countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries."
Back to section 11: In 11.23(e) "Promoting and supporting the downstream processing of forest products to increase retained value and other benefits." And in 11.20 (C) "Promoting efficient utilization and assessment to recover the full valuation of the goods and services provided by forests, forest lands and woodlands."
So, they want to raise the price of wood, after it becomes the only means of fuel. Every indication I have seen puts President Obama on the Agenda 21 bandwagon. Obama will raise the price of oil because he will eliminate our ability to create our own oil, thus making us dependant on foreign oil and the price they set. He will raise the price of coal beyond the ability of people to afford it. That will affect our choices. I believe in the future, the same thing will happen to natural gas. There will be an increase in disasters in gas companies if we don't get this man out of office, just as there have been on oil rigs. He will be forced to regulate it out of business. If that doesn't happen, we have his own words....energy costs will necessarily sky-rocket. So everyone turns to their fireplace to heat their home. People will go and buy "Franklin Stoves" and put it in their house. that's when they strike to protect the forest and make sure the forest gets replanted. Wood and all products associated with the forest will get "full value." Who determines the full value? And they list what is considered other than fuel wood: 11.23(f) ...(e.g. medicinal plants, dyes, fibres, gums, resins, fodder, cultural products, rattan, bamboo)...
Is there anything that doesn't cover? That covers our medicines, our clothes that are dyed, our clothes that are natural fibres, anything made with glue, animal food, so our farm life, wow, so many things.
Who has the most forest land? I would venture to say it's not going to be developed countries. It won't be Americans buying wood from American forests. I would bet that we'll be forced to send off to South American Rain Forests for our wood. Or maybe they'll develop some genetically engineered tree that grows really fast, plant it on an Indian reservation and "Give them the wealth, give them the wealth!" a la Van Jones!
Lori Ann Smith
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Our Children's Future
So, according to President Obama, we are supposed to not be worried about the exact future America looks like for our children, just fight for it. I tried to find the exact quote, but apparently no one else was concerned with it. I heard it this morning on Bill Bennett.
Umm, EXCUSE ME?!?! But isn't that sort of like jumping into a rescue boat knowing it has holes in it? I know what sort of America I want for my children. I want the same sort that our founding fathers established over 230 years ago. I want the same America that our documents (that are encased in the White House and you can look up on-line) outline. I want the same sort of America that I gave 4 years of my life in the United States Navy defending. I want the same sort of America that my husband gave 20 years of his life in the United States Navy defending, and I moved every 3 years. Yes, dependent wives give up things, too.
Our illustrious leader talks about everyone deserves a home to call their own. Does he realize that these people who sign on to fight for our country suspend those desires of owning their own home so that the rest of us can? They move from government housing to government housing until their time is up. I didn't complain while I was in. It was housing. I guess that's how they justify the little pay that the active duty get. "We house your dependents for free." Housing is better in some places than others. My first apartment in Hawaii had nice carpeting. It was multi-housing, like 10 units, so if your neighbor was loud, you knew it. But it was cinder block walls, so not so bad. But when we needed 3 bedrooms, they moved us into housing that had that tile floor that you just couldn't keep shiny. I think it was built in the 70's. You make due. You sacrifice. And they wonder why people have short-timer's calendars.
With this President, people just aren't re-enlisting, I hear. It takes a bigger commitment to country than a lot have. Now, you have to wonder if the administration will be behind you, or leave you out to dry. You know the people are behind you. The people are, after all, America, but they don't make policy.
I will not jump into Obama's leaky, Marxist boat and fight for his vision of America. He hasn't even come out and said what HIS vision for America IS! And he wants us to fight for it? I think not. I will fight for capitalism because I know it works. Well, not when your leader does everything to sabotage it.
Not when your leader goes behind your back and pulls the rug out from under all your friends. Can We the People contact all our Country Friends (that's friends that are other countries, not rural friends) and tell them that the President doesn't speak for us? Can we tell Great Britain that we're sorry the President sent them a bunch of DVD's that aren't even viewable in Europe? We're sorry that he left the head of Israel sitting in a room while he went to dinner? The man has no manners whatsoever.
I think I have it figured out. These radicals sat down and figured out how to infiltrate the government. They didn't figure out how to govern. They didn't figure out what to do if America was smart enough to figure them out. They didn't have a plan on what to do if they were discovered. They don't have a cover story in place. They may be community organizers, but they are not war game planners. That's what happens when radicals try to take over the government. All they wanted was power. They don't know how to get things down without cramming things down people's throat. They truly believe that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
I don't have the clip, but Glenn Beck had an infiltrator on his show where he infiltrated, back in the late 70's or early 80's, a radical group that wanted to overthrow the government. He asked them what they would do once they got into power. They were stumped because they hadn't thought that far in advance. They decided that the die-hard capitalists would have to be eliminated, because they could not be "re-trained." They considered setting up re-training camps for those that could be rehabilitated. That's code for brainwashed. But for those who would not be brainwashed, it's death. They figured that would be 10% of the population. At the time, America had 2.5 billion, so that was 250 million people. He said it was chilling to hear all these people with degrees from Columbia sitting around talking the logistics of killing 250 million people. Now it would be 300 million people. And I believe the number of people who would refuse to be brainwashed would be higher than that. I believe it would be closer to 40% Sorry, my calculator won't go that high to check my figures, but I think I got 1 billion, 200 million people? I just can't wrap my mind around that many people. I'm not that devious, how do you convince that many people to quietly die? And even if that many people don't stick to their principles and it's only 1/3, that's 999 million?
This so reads like a fiction novel, doesn't it? Is this the America you are willing to fight for? Not me. I want a certain future for my kids. I want a President who will TELL me, we are headed towards THIS future. I don't really care what future it is. I just want to be able to make up my own mind whether I'm for it or against it. I don't much like someone telling me to fight with me, but we don't know what we're fighting for. I know what I'm fighting for. I'm fighting for the founding documents that made this nation great. We can get her back, if we have to vote every single one of these bums out. This president, in my opinion, is bordering on Treason. This country was NOT founded on Marxism principles. When a president wants to fundamentally change the country, without the wishes of the people, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF TREASON in my book. You can not usurp the freedoms of the people.
Lori Ann Smith
Umm, EXCUSE ME?!?! But isn't that sort of like jumping into a rescue boat knowing it has holes in it? I know what sort of America I want for my children. I want the same sort that our founding fathers established over 230 years ago. I want the same America that our documents (that are encased in the White House and you can look up on-line) outline. I want the same sort of America that I gave 4 years of my life in the United States Navy defending. I want the same sort of America that my husband gave 20 years of his life in the United States Navy defending, and I moved every 3 years. Yes, dependent wives give up things, too.
Our illustrious leader talks about everyone deserves a home to call their own. Does he realize that these people who sign on to fight for our country suspend those desires of owning their own home so that the rest of us can? They move from government housing to government housing until their time is up. I didn't complain while I was in. It was housing. I guess that's how they justify the little pay that the active duty get. "We house your dependents for free." Housing is better in some places than others. My first apartment in Hawaii had nice carpeting. It was multi-housing, like 10 units, so if your neighbor was loud, you knew it. But it was cinder block walls, so not so bad. But when we needed 3 bedrooms, they moved us into housing that had that tile floor that you just couldn't keep shiny. I think it was built in the 70's. You make due. You sacrifice. And they wonder why people have short-timer's calendars.
With this President, people just aren't re-enlisting, I hear. It takes a bigger commitment to country than a lot have. Now, you have to wonder if the administration will be behind you, or leave you out to dry. You know the people are behind you. The people are, after all, America, but they don't make policy.
I will not jump into Obama's leaky, Marxist boat and fight for his vision of America. He hasn't even come out and said what HIS vision for America IS! And he wants us to fight for it? I think not. I will fight for capitalism because I know it works. Well, not when your leader does everything to sabotage it.
Not when your leader goes behind your back and pulls the rug out from under all your friends. Can We the People contact all our Country Friends (that's friends that are other countries, not rural friends) and tell them that the President doesn't speak for us? Can we tell Great Britain that we're sorry the President sent them a bunch of DVD's that aren't even viewable in Europe? We're sorry that he left the head of Israel sitting in a room while he went to dinner? The man has no manners whatsoever.
I think I have it figured out. These radicals sat down and figured out how to infiltrate the government. They didn't figure out how to govern. They didn't figure out what to do if America was smart enough to figure them out. They didn't have a plan on what to do if they were discovered. They don't have a cover story in place. They may be community organizers, but they are not war game planners. That's what happens when radicals try to take over the government. All they wanted was power. They don't know how to get things down without cramming things down people's throat. They truly believe that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
I don't have the clip, but Glenn Beck had an infiltrator on his show where he infiltrated, back in the late 70's or early 80's, a radical group that wanted to overthrow the government. He asked them what they would do once they got into power. They were stumped because they hadn't thought that far in advance. They decided that the die-hard capitalists would have to be eliminated, because they could not be "re-trained." They considered setting up re-training camps for those that could be rehabilitated. That's code for brainwashed. But for those who would not be brainwashed, it's death. They figured that would be 10% of the population. At the time, America had 2.5 billion, so that was 250 million people. He said it was chilling to hear all these people with degrees from Columbia sitting around talking the logistics of killing 250 million people. Now it would be 300 million people. And I believe the number of people who would refuse to be brainwashed would be higher than that. I believe it would be closer to 40% Sorry, my calculator won't go that high to check my figures, but I think I got 1 billion, 200 million people? I just can't wrap my mind around that many people. I'm not that devious, how do you convince that many people to quietly die? And even if that many people don't stick to their principles and it's only 1/3, that's 999 million?
This so reads like a fiction novel, doesn't it? Is this the America you are willing to fight for? Not me. I want a certain future for my kids. I want a President who will TELL me, we are headed towards THIS future. I don't really care what future it is. I just want to be able to make up my own mind whether I'm for it or against it. I don't much like someone telling me to fight with me, but we don't know what we're fighting for. I know what I'm fighting for. I'm fighting for the founding documents that made this nation great. We can get her back, if we have to vote every single one of these bums out. This president, in my opinion, is bordering on Treason. This country was NOT founded on Marxism principles. When a president wants to fundamentally change the country, without the wishes of the people, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF TREASON in my book. You can not usurp the freedoms of the people.
Lori Ann Smith
Monday, June 14, 2010
California's 1994 Proposition 187
I've been reading Glenn Beck's Down-loadable STORM manual. You can get it off of his website. I'm sorry, I don't have the link, but you can google him, I think it's just glennbeck.com, but I'm not sure right now. I had to write this and get it out. I Down loaded the manual and printed myself a copy. I'm old school. I like to hold a copy in my hands. I have to warn you. It doesn't print all pretty and bindable. Apparently it was originally a small book so if you print it front and back, you get small pages side by side. But I can live with that.
I found something interesting right off the bat, on their page 8. I took it to my therapy session (and that's a pain therapy session, not mental therapy - in case anyone is wondering). I've been down in my back, so they sent me to therapy. By the way, it went great. The first time I haven't been in pain for 3 months, but I digress.
The very first thing STORM did was to protest proposition 187 in California in 1994. Well, when they said it was an anti-immigration ballot initiative, you know I had to look it up. I found the following history on it:
_____________
Proposition 187, a California initiative statute, was a November 1994 ballot measure in the spirit of Proposition 13, designed to save the state $5 billion per year by reducing public services for illegal immigrants. The measure denied public social, health, and education services to illegal immigrants. It required state and local agencies to report suspected illegal aliens to state and federal authorities, and it declared that the manufacture, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents was a felony.
Popularly known as the "Save our State" initiative, Proposition 187 raised serious constitutional issues regarding illegal-alien access to public education as well as questions about the federal regulation of immigration. Regardless of these issues, Governor Pete Wilson and other Republican leaders, including Harold Ezell, President Ronald Reagan's western regional director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, joined in support. Democratic and liberal leaders, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, and the League of Women Voters opposed the measure. Opponents outspent supporters three to one. Republican, moderate white, and African American voters passed the measure with 59 percent of the vote. Democratic, liberal, and Hispanic voters overwhelmingly voted against the measure.
Proposition 187 was quickly in the courts. In 1997, federal district judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer ruled that the denial of services to illegal immigrants was unconstitutional. In 1998 she made her injunction permanent, grounding her decision on the federal government's exclusive authority to legislate on immigration.
Proposition 187 created deep ill will in the Hispanic community, and many immigrants responded to the measure's threats by becoming citizens.
Bibliography
Allswang, John M. The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898–1998. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000.
_____________
My, my, my, how short of a memory California has, that they have to protest Arizona law. This got APPROVAL of Republican, moderate white, and African American voters by 59%. I would not call that fringe. I would say they were fed up at the time with being inundated with illegal aliens steeling their money. They saw the writing on the wall in 1994 that there weren't enough funds to go around and they were being sucked dry. There was a great article written on it, where the writer thought the judge sabotaged the proposition.... http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0602/article_514.shtml.
And what were the results of the California bill? The illegal aliens became legal immigrants. I bet the ones who couldn't become legal went either home, or to some other state that wasn't so picky about their immigration status. Until it blew over and they quit enforcing it. I wonder how long that took? Until the Republicans got out of office?
I found a really good blog on the history of California when it was a republican state. http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/californias-crisis-and-the-collapse-of-the-republican-party/
There are commercials for Pete Wilson when he was running for Governor of California. At one time, they were Arizona, trying for border control. Amazing, huh? Now the liberals have control and the borders are thrown open. What do the conservatives in California think? Have they all left California?
I feel like I live in 2 Americas. There is the America that is in the news, the one I blog about. And there is the one that I see walking down the streets, that keeps my friends asleep. I wonder when they will collide?
Lori Ann Smith
I found something interesting right off the bat, on their page 8. I took it to my therapy session (and that's a pain therapy session, not mental therapy - in case anyone is wondering). I've been down in my back, so they sent me to therapy. By the way, it went great. The first time I haven't been in pain for 3 months, but I digress.
The very first thing STORM did was to protest proposition 187 in California in 1994. Well, when they said it was an anti-immigration ballot initiative, you know I had to look it up. I found the following history on it:
_____________
Proposition 187, a California initiative statute, was a November 1994 ballot measure in the spirit of Proposition 13, designed to save the state $5 billion per year by reducing public services for illegal immigrants. The measure denied public social, health, and education services to illegal immigrants. It required state and local agencies to report suspected illegal aliens to state and federal authorities, and it declared that the manufacture, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents was a felony.
Popularly known as the "Save our State" initiative, Proposition 187 raised serious constitutional issues regarding illegal-alien access to public education as well as questions about the federal regulation of immigration. Regardless of these issues, Governor Pete Wilson and other Republican leaders, including Harold Ezell, President Ronald Reagan's western regional director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, joined in support. Democratic and liberal leaders, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, and the League of Women Voters opposed the measure. Opponents outspent supporters three to one. Republican, moderate white, and African American voters passed the measure with 59 percent of the vote. Democratic, liberal, and Hispanic voters overwhelmingly voted against the measure.
Proposition 187 was quickly in the courts. In 1997, federal district judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer ruled that the denial of services to illegal immigrants was unconstitutional. In 1998 she made her injunction permanent, grounding her decision on the federal government's exclusive authority to legislate on immigration.
Proposition 187 created deep ill will in the Hispanic community, and many immigrants responded to the measure's threats by becoming citizens.
Bibliography
Allswang, John M. The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898–1998. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000.
_____________
My, my, my, how short of a memory California has, that they have to protest Arizona law. This got APPROVAL of Republican, moderate white, and African American voters by 59%. I would not call that fringe. I would say they were fed up at the time with being inundated with illegal aliens steeling their money. They saw the writing on the wall in 1994 that there weren't enough funds to go around and they were being sucked dry. There was a great article written on it, where the writer thought the judge sabotaged the proposition.... http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0602/article_514.shtml.
And what were the results of the California bill? The illegal aliens became legal immigrants. I bet the ones who couldn't become legal went either home, or to some other state that wasn't so picky about their immigration status. Until it blew over and they quit enforcing it. I wonder how long that took? Until the Republicans got out of office?
I found a really good blog on the history of California when it was a republican state. http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/californias-crisis-and-the-collapse-of-the-republican-party/
There are commercials for Pete Wilson when he was running for Governor of California. At one time, they were Arizona, trying for border control. Amazing, huh? Now the liberals have control and the borders are thrown open. What do the conservatives in California think? Have they all left California?
I feel like I live in 2 Americas. There is the America that is in the news, the one I blog about. And there is the one that I see walking down the streets, that keeps my friends asleep. I wonder when they will collide?
Lori Ann Smith
Oil Crisis....
I was watching a report on the News Blackout by ABC's Matt Gutman. He mentioned that he couldn't understand why the people weren't talking about it. He also mentioned that BP should want the good press because these people were picking up the most minute pieces of oil debris, and yet BP cleared out all the workers from behind him and wouldn't let them even appear on camera. There is still an order for them not to even say they are being employed by BP. Then it hit me.
He made a tiny mention of it. The fishing industry has been DEVASTATED. They have NO EMPLOYMENT. BP has swept in and employed all these people and given them jobs. Why are they not suddenly making themselves out to be the saviors? When have you ever seen liberals not pat themselves on the back when they did something good? When they want slaves. They are telling the people that they are "employing" not to talk. Or what? Or they will fire them. They will have NO INCOME anymore. They will be out on the street. With no way to feed their families. No fishing industry. No money. And these people will be dead in 20 years. They are being poisoned by the chemicals that they are claiming are dispersant's to break up the oil.
This is population control. Someone has to do something about this. These are poor people, who, but by the Grace of God could have been you, America. You could have moved to this region of the country. You could have family that made their money by the fishing industry. Since when did it make it right to hire people to do your dirty work for you because you could? It's also the British are taking over our land. Don't you get it...This is a BRITISH owned and operated company, employing AMERICAN citizens who now have no other means of employment because a BRITISH company screwed up off our coast and they want our citizens to clean it up for them, while the pump banned chemicals on top of the oil to make it more toxic and make our people sick. Why don't they put British citizens out there to clean it up?
I say put the head of BP on the front lines if it's so safe. I want to see the CEO of BP with no hazard gear walking the beach in Louisiana or Florida or where ever it is that all this stuff is washing up. I want to see oil on his hands as soon as possible. And I want to see Obama walking with him. And I want to make sure it's not faked. I want FOX there with him, and I want FOX in hazard suits. I want Glenn Beck with them to document it.
Make this go viral....start a campaign....IF YOU DON'T GET IT...DEMAND IT!!!
Lori Ann Smith
He made a tiny mention of it. The fishing industry has been DEVASTATED. They have NO EMPLOYMENT. BP has swept in and employed all these people and given them jobs. Why are they not suddenly making themselves out to be the saviors? When have you ever seen liberals not pat themselves on the back when they did something good? When they want slaves. They are telling the people that they are "employing" not to talk. Or what? Or they will fire them. They will have NO INCOME anymore. They will be out on the street. With no way to feed their families. No fishing industry. No money. And these people will be dead in 20 years. They are being poisoned by the chemicals that they are claiming are dispersant's to break up the oil.
This is population control. Someone has to do something about this. These are poor people, who, but by the Grace of God could have been you, America. You could have moved to this region of the country. You could have family that made their money by the fishing industry. Since when did it make it right to hire people to do your dirty work for you because you could? It's also the British are taking over our land. Don't you get it...This is a BRITISH owned and operated company, employing AMERICAN citizens who now have no other means of employment because a BRITISH company screwed up off our coast and they want our citizens to clean it up for them, while the pump banned chemicals on top of the oil to make it more toxic and make our people sick. Why don't they put British citizens out there to clean it up?
I say put the head of BP on the front lines if it's so safe. I want to see the CEO of BP with no hazard gear walking the beach in Louisiana or Florida or where ever it is that all this stuff is washing up. I want to see oil on his hands as soon as possible. And I want to see Obama walking with him. And I want to make sure it's not faked. I want FOX there with him, and I want FOX in hazard suits. I want Glenn Beck with them to document it.
Make this go viral....start a campaign....IF YOU DON'T GET IT...DEMAND IT!!!
Lori Ann Smith
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Garden Plot....Civil Disturbance Document
I want you to imagine a scenario. There's a Tea party event. It's a peaceful event. There are senior citizens gathering to peacefully protest the amount of taxes being levied against us now adays. They are waving their American flags. They are singing patriotic songs, like the Star Spangled Banner, including the 4th verse that I've just recently heard, God Bless America, Onward Christian Soldiers, and songs like that. There are mothers holding children. There are blankets spread out on the ground. There are speakers on the podium and they're talking about how we have to bring our country back to what our founders wanted. We need smaller government, not this huge governmental monster that it has become.
Then, suddenly, the scene erupts into pandemonium as SWAT teams swarm the area. They round up everyone and start arresting people. Everyone there knows better than to resist. They start to, but they remember Glenn Beck's words and they are peaceful. After all, this is America, isn't it? They have done nothing wrong. They know that if they don't resist, things will get straightened out, and they will get to go home. Then the vans start to pull up. Hundreds of Vans. People are stuffed into vans and hauled off. They aren't allowed a phone call. There is a press black out, and there is no news of the event. The Constitution is suspended. There is no news let out of the event what-so-ever.
A day goes by, and relatives who knew of the Tea Party start calling local authorities and asking where their relatives are. "We haven't seen them since they attended the Tea Party," they tell the authorities. They are told that they are being held without bail at a local detention center by the federal authorities. How do they have the right to do this?
It's called The Kerner Commission, or Operation Garden Plot, and they've done it before in AMERICA.
I've recently come in possession of the entire document. I'll post the link at the bottom of my blog. Here is how they describe a threat:
Threat.
(a) During domestic civil disturbance operations,
federal military forces will confront members of the civil populace participating in group acts of violence antagonistic to authority. These acts can fall anywhere along a broad spectrum of violence that encompasses individual acts of terrorism, riots, and insurrection.
(b) Civil disturbances may occur spontaneously, by preplanning, or incidental to some other event. People participating in a civil disturbance may be members of any class, age group, or part of the political spectrum. Their participation may be motivated by economic, criminal, racial, religious, political, or psychological considerations, or any combination thereof.
(c) The capabilities of the participants will vary widely. They may use planned or spontaneous tactics that are nonviolent or violent. The technical sophistication of violent participants can also vary widely, ranging from crude weapons to sophisticated modern weapons. Participants’ actions may be governed by the forces of crowd behavior or by leaders exercising command and control through advanced communications. While most participants will typically be on foot, vehicles may be used.
_______________
Note that it says it may be non-violent. They just have to label you as being a civil disturbance. And it can be for economic reasons. If you protest being taxed, peaceably, you're a civil disturbance. Do you see the potential for abuse by the Obama administration, here?
Then we have "assumptions."
___________________
Assumptions.
(1) Simultaneous domestic civil disturbances requiring commitment of federal forces at different locations may occur.
(2) If the civil disturbance constitutes a national emergency, forces of the ready reserve will be available for civil disturbance operations by order of the President or Congress.
(3) Under conditions of partial or full mobilization, armed forces will be made available, as required, for civil disturbance operations consistent with the programmed flow of forces in support of executed contingency plans.
(4) Forces that are allocated to other OPLANS may be rapidly recalled and deployed elsewhere. Strategic forces will only be employed at the discretion of the National Command Authority (NCA).
_____________
Luckily, that's a safeguard. It has to constitute a national emergency. What do you think he's waiting on? Why do you think he's been trying to turn every little thing into a national emergency? Can you say H1N1? He's been making a mountain out of a molehill out of everything since he got into office. Ever wonder why? Can you say Garden Plot?
The next part is really long, as it goes into detail on the mission and what the Army is supposed to do as a mission. They are to map, provide intelligence, logistical support, provide for air lift for medical emergencies. The Navy is even supposed to help, with sealift and airlift resources as needed.
______________
(2) Commander (Cdr), MDW, will: maintain in readiness Headquarters, JTF MDW; periodically test JTF MDW headquarters organization and procedures for civil disturbance operations by command post exercise (CPX); establish appropriate
civil disturbance standing operating procedures (SOPs); conduct liaison with D.C. authorities as required; prepare a city information planning packet for Washington, D.C. JTF MDW will be used exclusively in the Washington, D.C., area and will
control federal forces employed in the Washington, D.C., area for civil disturbance operations. When directed by the Executive Agent, up to two brigades may be deployed to augment JTF MDW without necessitating activation of an additional JTF
headquarters.
_________
Funny, I read that as exclusively in the Washington, D.C. area. Didn't they just do Civil Disobedience training in the gulf, with Kentucky National Guardsmen and local authority? Wouldn't that violate that order?
Here is a list of terms:
________________
EXPLANATION OF TERMS.
a. Civil Disturbance Conditions. CIDCONs are those required conditions of preparedness to be attained by military forces in preparation for deployment to an area of operations in response to an actual or threatened civil disturbance.
(1) CIDCON 5 - Forces designated for civil disturbance operations are maintained in a normal training and preparedness status. Operating Agents/Supported CINCs designate units for civil disturbance operations within their respective AORs.
(2) CIDCON 4 - Increased monitoring and analysis of the civil disturbance situation and the initiation of detailed planning for civil disturbance operations. Require-ments for reconnaissance by the JTF commander are established. Update unit movement requirements IAW Appendix 5, Annex D. Establish a tentative H-Hour when possible. Normally, designated ground and airlift forces will have 12 hours from initial notification (effective time) to the attainment of CIDCON 4 status (attainment
time). Designated units will attain a CIDCON 4 as rapidly as possible when less than 12 hours is specified between the effective time and the attainment time for CIDCON 4. Upon attainment of CIDCON 4, designated airlift forces are prepared to depart the onload airfield(s) (wheels up by first aircraft at HHour) in 12 hours and/or designated forces are prepared to cross the start point (SP) (first vehicle, H-Hour) at home station in 12 hours.
(3) CIDCON 3 - An increase in designated GARDEN PLOT force preparedness to include possible prepositioning of airlift and forces at the onload airfield(s), if deploying by air. On attainment, forces to be transported via air-craft are
prepared to complete loading in five hours and deploy (wheels up by first aircraft) one hour later. Surface transported forces are prepared to complete vehicle loading in five hours and cross the SP one hour later.
(4) CIDCON 2 - A further increase in the preparedness of designated GARDEN PLOT forces requiring the movement of units to the onload airfield and the initiation of aircraft loading for those forces to be transported via aircraft. On attainment,
units have completed aircraft or vehicle loading to ensure ability to deploy first aircraft or cross SP in one hour.
(5) CIDCON 1 - Maximum force preparedness. CIDCON 1 will be directed one hour prior to H- Hour. On attainment of CIDCON 1, units have deployed first aircraft or crossed SP at HHour.
______________
I wonder what CIDCON we're in right now? You've seen the aerophoto's of the UN Vans sitting on an air strip in Florida? I recently went to those coordinates and they're gone. I looked around and there are parts of Florida that are digitized out. You know how you can put a dot and fuzz out parts of a photograph? They don't do that on military bases, why would they do that on government ground? They don't care about our military boys/girls, but they do about hiding UN vans from the public? I have to wonder.
What they can do to us:
____________________
APPLICATION OF FORCE.
a. General: The primary rule which governs the actions of federal forces in assisting state and local authorities to restore law and order is that the JTF commander must at all times use only the minimum force required to accomplish his mission. This paramount principle should control both the selection of
appropriate operational techniques and tactics (see paragraph l.c. below) and the choice of options for arming the troops (see paragraph l.d. below). Following this principle, the use of deadly force (i.e., live ammunition or any other type of physical force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm) is authorized
only under extreme circum-stances where certain criteria are met (see paragraph l.b. below). To emphasize limitations on the use of firepower and to restrict automatic fire, commanders will ensure that rifles with only a safe or semi-automatic selection
capability, or rifles modified to have only a safe or semiautomatic selection capability, will be used as the basic individual weapon for troops in a civil disturbance area. Orders will be issued to all troops that weapons capable of automatic fire will not be fired automatically, except on the order of competent authority as delegated by the JTF commander. The JTF will deploy with automatic weapons only when authorized by the Operating Agent/ Supported CINC.
b. Use of Non-Deadly and Deadly Force.
(1) The JTF commander is authorized to use nondeadly force to control the disturbance, to prevent crimes, and to apprehend or detain persons who have committed crimes; but the degree of force used must be no greater than that reasonably necessary under the circumstances. The use of deadly force, however, in effect invokes the power of summary execution and can therefore be justified only by extreme necessity. Accordingly, its use is not authorized for the purpose of preventing activities which do not pose a significant risk of death or serious bodily harm (e.g., curfew violations or looting). If a mission cannot be accomplished
without the use of deadly force, but deadly force is not permitted under the guidelines authorizing its use, accomplishment of the mission must be delayed until sufficient nondeadly force can be brought to bear. The commander should report the situation and seek instructions from higher authority. All the requirements of subparagraph (2) below must be met in every case in which deadly force is employed.
_____________
This is good news, I suppose, they can't use deadly force unless we get violent. THIS is why Glenn Beck and O'Reilly and all those guys are saying to us DON'T GET VIOLENT. And they mean it. If we get violent it will give them an excuse to spray with bullets. And these are radicals from the 60's. They will give the order to do just that.
_______________
Real Estate:
a. Real Estate.
(1) The Operating Agent/Supported CINC will provide field personnel, as required, to permit rapid and efficient execution of real estate usage. User agreements for known JTF facility requirements may be executed by the appropriate Engineer Division/District Commander on request of the Operating Agent/Supported CINC. If considered necessary by the Operating Agent/Supported CINC, and with the concurrence of the appropriate civil authorities, arrangements for use of facilities may be concluded as a planning action prior to initiation of civil disturbance operations. The requirement for real estate actions to be handled on a need-to-know basis should
not be allowed to interfere with necessary real estate arrangements, either before or after deployment of the JTF. Although U.S. Army Engineer Division/District commanders are responsible for the acquisition of real estate, responsibility for the release of any information concerning a plan or change in an existing plan, is with the Operating Agent/Supported CINC; initial contacts with public officials or private property owners to arrange use of real property will therefore be made
by the Operating Agent/Supported CINC. The Engineer Division/District Commander, or his real estate representative, will accompany the Operating Agent/Supported CINC's representative to provide technical support.
(2) The JTF staff will include an officer to coordinate real estate matters through and ICW the responsible Engineer Division/District Commander represented on the Engineer Liaison Team (ELT) (see paragraph 4d).
(3) In developing his plan, the JTF commander will make maximum use of federally controlled property rather than other property. Property use will be coordinated as follows:
(a) Property under DOD control. Direct coordination is authorized with all elements of DOD to arrange use of DOD-controlled property.
(b) Property controlled by other federal agencies and property not under federal control.
1 Real estate operations will be coordinated by the Engineer Division/District Commander who performs military real estate operations in the applicable area.
2 The Engineer Division/District Commander will advise the JTF commander on required procedures prior to reconnaissance and occupation of property not under DOD control.
3 Direct coordination with the Engineer Division/District Commander should be maintained for real estate matters and to keep the Engineer Division/District Commander informed on JTF requirements.
(4) Requests by the National Guard, when on state active duty, for use of Active Army and USAR facilities, can be approved or disapproved at Army major subordinate command level except when such operations would violate federal statutes. Written agreements to formalize use of U.S. Army Reserve facilities for periods of occupancy in excess of 24 hours will include a provision for dual-occupancy (normal occupant of facility and borrowing agency). The reporting requirements of paragraph 7, Annex K, apply to requests for use of federal facilities.
_____________________
Sounds like "We'll try to let you know when we confiscate your property." Well, it does say further down they have to make sure if private real estate is used that they make sure that funds are available first. Guess that leaves the current administration out.
Like I said, this document was originated back when we did have radicals that wanted to overthrow our government. It was started for a good reason. But we have those same radicals now, with law degrees, INSIDE our government. They are using our own documents against us. They have changed it once before. I didn't look up the dates, but they changed it in 1996. Wasn't that about the time of Ruby Ridge? Don't trust my links.....look it up for yourself. I did. It's called Garden Plot. It's on the Internet.
We have to stop this administration before they grab any more power. The constitution was supposed to be designed to stop power hungry people just like these monsters. We need patriots in Washington, D.C. Not Radicals. We don't need to fundamentally transform our form of government. We need our government back to what the founders set up.
Lori Ann Smith
Then, suddenly, the scene erupts into pandemonium as SWAT teams swarm the area. They round up everyone and start arresting people. Everyone there knows better than to resist. They start to, but they remember Glenn Beck's words and they are peaceful. After all, this is America, isn't it? They have done nothing wrong. They know that if they don't resist, things will get straightened out, and they will get to go home. Then the vans start to pull up. Hundreds of Vans. People are stuffed into vans and hauled off. They aren't allowed a phone call. There is a press black out, and there is no news of the event. The Constitution is suspended. There is no news let out of the event what-so-ever.
A day goes by, and relatives who knew of the Tea Party start calling local authorities and asking where their relatives are. "We haven't seen them since they attended the Tea Party," they tell the authorities. They are told that they are being held without bail at a local detention center by the federal authorities. How do they have the right to do this?
It's called The Kerner Commission, or Operation Garden Plot, and they've done it before in AMERICA.
I've recently come in possession of the entire document. I'll post the link at the bottom of my blog. Here is how they describe a threat:
Threat.
(a) During domestic civil disturbance operations,
federal military forces will confront members of the civil populace participating in group acts of violence antagonistic to authority. These acts can fall anywhere along a broad spectrum of violence that encompasses individual acts of terrorism, riots, and insurrection.
(b) Civil disturbances may occur spontaneously, by preplanning, or incidental to some other event. People participating in a civil disturbance may be members of any class, age group, or part of the political spectrum. Their participation may be motivated by economic, criminal, racial, religious, political, or psychological considerations, or any combination thereof.
(c) The capabilities of the participants will vary widely. They may use planned or spontaneous tactics that are nonviolent or violent. The technical sophistication of violent participants can also vary widely, ranging from crude weapons to sophisticated modern weapons. Participants’ actions may be governed by the forces of crowd behavior or by leaders exercising command and control through advanced communications. While most participants will typically be on foot, vehicles may be used.
_______________
Note that it says it may be non-violent. They just have to label you as being a civil disturbance. And it can be for economic reasons. If you protest being taxed, peaceably, you're a civil disturbance. Do you see the potential for abuse by the Obama administration, here?
Then we have "assumptions."
___________________
Assumptions.
(1) Simultaneous domestic civil disturbances requiring commitment of federal forces at different locations may occur.
(2) If the civil disturbance constitutes a national emergency, forces of the ready reserve will be available for civil disturbance operations by order of the President or Congress.
(3) Under conditions of partial or full mobilization, armed forces will be made available, as required, for civil disturbance operations consistent with the programmed flow of forces in support of executed contingency plans.
(4) Forces that are allocated to other OPLANS may be rapidly recalled and deployed elsewhere. Strategic forces will only be employed at the discretion of the National Command Authority (NCA).
_____________
Luckily, that's a safeguard. It has to constitute a national emergency. What do you think he's waiting on? Why do you think he's been trying to turn every little thing into a national emergency? Can you say H1N1? He's been making a mountain out of a molehill out of everything since he got into office. Ever wonder why? Can you say Garden Plot?
The next part is really long, as it goes into detail on the mission and what the Army is supposed to do as a mission. They are to map, provide intelligence, logistical support, provide for air lift for medical emergencies. The Navy is even supposed to help, with sealift and airlift resources as needed.
______________
(2) Commander (Cdr), MDW, will: maintain in readiness Headquarters, JTF MDW; periodically test JTF MDW headquarters organization and procedures for civil disturbance operations by command post exercise (CPX); establish appropriate
civil disturbance standing operating procedures (SOPs); conduct liaison with D.C. authorities as required; prepare a city information planning packet for Washington, D.C. JTF MDW will be used exclusively in the Washington, D.C., area and will
control federal forces employed in the Washington, D.C., area for civil disturbance operations. When directed by the Executive Agent, up to two brigades may be deployed to augment JTF MDW without necessitating activation of an additional JTF
headquarters.
_________
Funny, I read that as exclusively in the Washington, D.C. area. Didn't they just do Civil Disobedience training in the gulf, with Kentucky National Guardsmen and local authority? Wouldn't that violate that order?
Here is a list of terms:
________________
EXPLANATION OF TERMS.
a. Civil Disturbance Conditions. CIDCONs are those required conditions of preparedness to be attained by military forces in preparation for deployment to an area of operations in response to an actual or threatened civil disturbance.
(1) CIDCON 5 - Forces designated for civil disturbance operations are maintained in a normal training and preparedness status. Operating Agents/Supported CINCs designate units for civil disturbance operations within their respective AORs.
(2) CIDCON 4 - Increased monitoring and analysis of the civil disturbance situation and the initiation of detailed planning for civil disturbance operations. Require-ments for reconnaissance by the JTF commander are established. Update unit movement requirements IAW Appendix 5, Annex D. Establish a tentative H-Hour when possible. Normally, designated ground and airlift forces will have 12 hours from initial notification (effective time) to the attainment of CIDCON 4 status (attainment
time). Designated units will attain a CIDCON 4 as rapidly as possible when less than 12 hours is specified between the effective time and the attainment time for CIDCON 4. Upon attainment of CIDCON 4, designated airlift forces are prepared to depart the onload airfield(s) (wheels up by first aircraft at HHour) in 12 hours and/or designated forces are prepared to cross the start point (SP) (first vehicle, H-Hour) at home station in 12 hours.
(3) CIDCON 3 - An increase in designated GARDEN PLOT force preparedness to include possible prepositioning of airlift and forces at the onload airfield(s), if deploying by air. On attainment, forces to be transported via air-craft are
prepared to complete loading in five hours and deploy (wheels up by first aircraft) one hour later. Surface transported forces are prepared to complete vehicle loading in five hours and cross the SP one hour later.
(4) CIDCON 2 - A further increase in the preparedness of designated GARDEN PLOT forces requiring the movement of units to the onload airfield and the initiation of aircraft loading for those forces to be transported via aircraft. On attainment,
units have completed aircraft or vehicle loading to ensure ability to deploy first aircraft or cross SP in one hour.
(5) CIDCON 1 - Maximum force preparedness. CIDCON 1 will be directed one hour prior to H- Hour. On attainment of CIDCON 1, units have deployed first aircraft or crossed SP at HHour.
______________
I wonder what CIDCON we're in right now? You've seen the aerophoto's of the UN Vans sitting on an air strip in Florida? I recently went to those coordinates and they're gone. I looked around and there are parts of Florida that are digitized out. You know how you can put a dot and fuzz out parts of a photograph? They don't do that on military bases, why would they do that on government ground? They don't care about our military boys/girls, but they do about hiding UN vans from the public? I have to wonder.
What they can do to us:
____________________
APPLICATION OF FORCE.
a. General: The primary rule which governs the actions of federal forces in assisting state and local authorities to restore law and order is that the JTF commander must at all times use only the minimum force required to accomplish his mission. This paramount principle should control both the selection of
appropriate operational techniques and tactics (see paragraph l.c. below) and the choice of options for arming the troops (see paragraph l.d. below). Following this principle, the use of deadly force (i.e., live ammunition or any other type of physical force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm) is authorized
only under extreme circum-stances where certain criteria are met (see paragraph l.b. below). To emphasize limitations on the use of firepower and to restrict automatic fire, commanders will ensure that rifles with only a safe or semi-automatic selection
capability, or rifles modified to have only a safe or semiautomatic selection capability, will be used as the basic individual weapon for troops in a civil disturbance area. Orders will be issued to all troops that weapons capable of automatic fire will not be fired automatically, except on the order of competent authority as delegated by the JTF commander. The JTF will deploy with automatic weapons only when authorized by the Operating Agent/ Supported CINC.
b. Use of Non-Deadly and Deadly Force.
(1) The JTF commander is authorized to use nondeadly force to control the disturbance, to prevent crimes, and to apprehend or detain persons who have committed crimes; but the degree of force used must be no greater than that reasonably necessary under the circumstances. The use of deadly force, however, in effect invokes the power of summary execution and can therefore be justified only by extreme necessity. Accordingly, its use is not authorized for the purpose of preventing activities which do not pose a significant risk of death or serious bodily harm (e.g., curfew violations or looting). If a mission cannot be accomplished
without the use of deadly force, but deadly force is not permitted under the guidelines authorizing its use, accomplishment of the mission must be delayed until sufficient nondeadly force can be brought to bear. The commander should report the situation and seek instructions from higher authority. All the requirements of subparagraph (2) below must be met in every case in which deadly force is employed.
_____________
This is good news, I suppose, they can't use deadly force unless we get violent. THIS is why Glenn Beck and O'Reilly and all those guys are saying to us DON'T GET VIOLENT. And they mean it. If we get violent it will give them an excuse to spray with bullets. And these are radicals from the 60's. They will give the order to do just that.
_______________
Real Estate:
a. Real Estate.
(1) The Operating Agent/Supported CINC will provide field personnel, as required, to permit rapid and efficient execution of real estate usage. User agreements for known JTF facility requirements may be executed by the appropriate Engineer Division/District Commander on request of the Operating Agent/Supported CINC. If considered necessary by the Operating Agent/Supported CINC, and with the concurrence of the appropriate civil authorities, arrangements for use of facilities may be concluded as a planning action prior to initiation of civil disturbance operations. The requirement for real estate actions to be handled on a need-to-know basis should
not be allowed to interfere with necessary real estate arrangements, either before or after deployment of the JTF. Although U.S. Army Engineer Division/District commanders are responsible for the acquisition of real estate, responsibility for the release of any information concerning a plan or change in an existing plan, is with the Operating Agent/Supported CINC; initial contacts with public officials or private property owners to arrange use of real property will therefore be made
by the Operating Agent/Supported CINC. The Engineer Division/District Commander, or his real estate representative, will accompany the Operating Agent/Supported CINC's representative to provide technical support.
(2) The JTF staff will include an officer to coordinate real estate matters through and ICW the responsible Engineer Division/District Commander represented on the Engineer Liaison Team (ELT) (see paragraph 4d).
(3) In developing his plan, the JTF commander will make maximum use of federally controlled property rather than other property. Property use will be coordinated as follows:
(a) Property under DOD control. Direct coordination is authorized with all elements of DOD to arrange use of DOD-controlled property.
(b) Property controlled by other federal agencies and property not under federal control.
1 Real estate operations will be coordinated by the Engineer Division/District Commander who performs military real estate operations in the applicable area.
2 The Engineer Division/District Commander will advise the JTF commander on required procedures prior to reconnaissance and occupation of property not under DOD control.
3 Direct coordination with the Engineer Division/District Commander should be maintained for real estate matters and to keep the Engineer Division/District Commander informed on JTF requirements.
(4) Requests by the National Guard, when on state active duty, for use of Active Army and USAR facilities, can be approved or disapproved at Army major subordinate command level except when such operations would violate federal statutes. Written agreements to formalize use of U.S. Army Reserve facilities for periods of occupancy in excess of 24 hours will include a provision for dual-occupancy (normal occupant of facility and borrowing agency). The reporting requirements of paragraph 7, Annex K, apply to requests for use of federal facilities.
_____________________
Sounds like "We'll try to let you know when we confiscate your property." Well, it does say further down they have to make sure if private real estate is used that they make sure that funds are available first. Guess that leaves the current administration out.
Like I said, this document was originated back when we did have radicals that wanted to overthrow our government. It was started for a good reason. But we have those same radicals now, with law degrees, INSIDE our government. They are using our own documents against us. They have changed it once before. I didn't look up the dates, but they changed it in 1996. Wasn't that about the time of Ruby Ridge? Don't trust my links.....look it up for yourself. I did. It's called Garden Plot. It's on the Internet.
We have to stop this administration before they grab any more power. The constitution was supposed to be designed to stop power hungry people just like these monsters. We need patriots in Washington, D.C. Not Radicals. We don't need to fundamentally transform our form of government. We need our government back to what the founders set up.
Lori Ann Smith
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Oil Crisis
If you follow my blogs, you know that I don't often post stuff from other people. I write my own stuff, do my own research. I'm going to make an exception here. I want to promote someone else's site:
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/06/05/amount-neurotoxin-pesticide-corexit-sprayed-bp-tops-1-million-gallons/
Apparently there is a news black-out and this is the only reporter getting real news out. And he's not with FOX! What a shocker. There are real news people out there. BP is supposedly spraying a chemical dispersant that is 11 times more toxic in order to make it thinner and spread it out and make it look less of a spill than it is. I don't know if I believe this, I'm putting it out there for you to decide. It looks convincing to me.
When you couple this with another tid-bit that I heard:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=756_1275016676
What are UN vans doing in Florida? That was on a satelite photo, and you can't fake that. Is Obama looking for a reason for declaring martial law and moving everyone out of Florida? Is he looking for a reason to move people into concentration camps? Is he looking for a reason to grab land? Will he answer any questions concerning all this? This man has to be stopped.
Lori Ann Smith
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/06/05/amount-neurotoxin-pesticide-corexit-sprayed-bp-tops-1-million-gallons/
Apparently there is a news black-out and this is the only reporter getting real news out. And he's not with FOX! What a shocker. There are real news people out there. BP is supposedly spraying a chemical dispersant that is 11 times more toxic in order to make it thinner and spread it out and make it look less of a spill than it is. I don't know if I believe this, I'm putting it out there for you to decide. It looks convincing to me.
When you couple this with another tid-bit that I heard:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=756_1275016676
What are UN vans doing in Florida? That was on a satelite photo, and you can't fake that. Is Obama looking for a reason for declaring martial law and moving everyone out of Florida? Is he looking for a reason to move people into concentration camps? Is he looking for a reason to grab land? Will he answer any questions concerning all this? This man has to be stopped.
Lori Ann Smith
Agenda 21 - Better Hope America Doesn't Ever Sign This
I've heard a lot of bad things about this, but I've reserved my judgement because I've only heard analysis of it, never actually seen the document myself. Until now. I finally found the actual document on the United Nations site. Before I post the link, I have to give a disclaimer. 1). Apparently this was written in 1989. I don't know what has transpired since then and changed the UN's thinking on the matter, or how bad it has gotten since this document was written. They talk about what they want to do by the year 2000....that is scary. 2.) Every time I go to the site to get the address, I have to virus protect and delete at least 25 corrupted cookies that have adware and spyware on them. And I have a really good virus protection. So if you don't have any virus protection at all, I suggest you don't go at all, or at least not from your home computer. Am I being paranoid? You read the document and then decide for yourself. It scared me silly.
http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=52
For some general guidelines, it's pro-woman to the point of pushing a woman's group agenda above all else. It's pro-youth group, children and indigenous people and poor. It seldom mentions men. It's anti-catholic and anyone else that wants large families (hidden under the guise of letting women be in charge of determining the size of their family as if men are in total charge of that). It's pro-redistribution of wealth, which includes land, jobs and technology. It has global governance written all over it. It spells out universal health care as well as free housing and supports "low impact lifestyles." Bear in mind, I'm on about page 40 of 270 pages. I printed the whole thing and bound it for my personal library. It's like Glenn Beck said, things are disappearing off the Internet too fast these days.
Back in my homeschooling days, I bought a comb binder for $9.99. It cost more to ship it because it weighs a ton. It's a dinosaur, but it works. I can comb bind anything I print, those little plastic 19-point comb bindings? I love it. But, printed, I can annotate my thoughts directly on the page.
And annotated, I can tell you the specifics of what I've found.
Redistribution of Wealth: In the introduction, they want everyone to work together to protect environments and ecosystems. Sounds good, right? But further down, it states that it "will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries..." Did you catch that? That's section 1.4. It means what we're doing is expensive, they can't afford it so the developed countries have to pay for it. They also say we will be required to strength the "capacity of international institutions for the implantation of Agenda 21." We have to pay them to carry this out? I don't think so. They're the bully of the school yard, telling us what to do, and we have to pay them to do it?
They also claim that this agenda can't "gather momentum if the developing countries are weighted down by external indebtedness, if development finance is inadequate, if barriers restrict access to markets and if commodity prices and the terms of trade of developing countries remain depressed." We have to make commodities cheaper because they can't afford them?
And in 2, section C, they come out and say it: "Providing adequate financial resources to developing countries." Let's just give them the money. If you'd like a scarier version: section 2.22(g): "Ensure that special factors affecting environment and trade policies in the developing countries are borne in mind in the application of environmental standards, as well as in the use of any trade measures. It is worth noting that standards that are valid in the most advanced countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries;" WHAT? We have to abide by the rules, but because they're poor they don't have to? It will hurt us, but it won't hurt them, because they're poor? So why will it hurt us? Because we have MONEY?
And would you like an explanation as to why Obama is not doing anything about the oil crisis? Found it in Agenda 21: section 2.22 (d): "Deal with the root causes of environment and development problems in a manner that avoids the adoption of environmental measures resulting in unjustified restrictions on trade;" If he makes sure that he solves this oil crisis, he can't stop all oil production. If he makes it a really big deal, he can halt all our oil production and we remain dependent on foreign oil. Agenda 21 supported.
And that's just one aspect of Agenda 21.
Let's look at all the references to women. I'm all for equal rights. But I can't even count the number of times they list the rights of women...I started highlighting it in blue and circling women's groups. They don't list men but a few times, and when they do it's with women. I counted 60 times in the approximately 40 pages I've read so far that women are listed. In section 3.2: An effective strategy for tackling the problems of poverty, development and environment simultaneously should begin by focusing on resources, production and people should cover demographic issues, enhanced health care and focusing on resources, production and people should cover demographics issues, enhanced health care and education, the rights of women, the role of youth and of indigenous people and local communities and a demographic participation process in association with improved governance."
There's a heavy emphasis on helping women determine the spacing of their children. This sounds to me like they want to influence Catholics that birth control is a good idea, as if it wasn't really their choice to have so many children, but their husband was making them do so. No, I am not Catholic.
It's amazing what I used to think was conspiracy theory, and now no longer do. Now, the question is: Are we, as a Nation, considering this? I don't know. I think if the American people were aware of it, they would revolt before allowing it. But we have radicals in the White House, who think just like this. THEY would do this. THEY think like this. I see policy that reflects some of this thinking. We have heard some of this language from our president, haven't we? He is for redistribution of wealth. We have universal health care now. Is he also for Universal Housing? Will he also give land to people who don't have jobs? Where is he going to get that land? From people who own more than an acre? Is he going to come to you, who have 5 acres, or 10 acres, or 20 acres and say you have too much land, we're going to give some of your land to Jose who doesn't have a job and needs that land. He can't pay you for it, but he still needs it for his family, so you get to give it to him, and not get compensated at all. It's your patriotic duty. It's your Godly duty. Go Obama.
Where does it stop? If you hear the words Agenda 21, remember the fall of freedom in Germany. Don't let it happen in America. Stand for Freedom.
Lori Ann Smith
http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=52
For some general guidelines, it's pro-woman to the point of pushing a woman's group agenda above all else. It's pro-youth group, children and indigenous people and poor. It seldom mentions men. It's anti-catholic and anyone else that wants large families (hidden under the guise of letting women be in charge of determining the size of their family as if men are in total charge of that). It's pro-redistribution of wealth, which includes land, jobs and technology. It has global governance written all over it. It spells out universal health care as well as free housing and supports "low impact lifestyles." Bear in mind, I'm on about page 40 of 270 pages. I printed the whole thing and bound it for my personal library. It's like Glenn Beck said, things are disappearing off the Internet too fast these days.
Back in my homeschooling days, I bought a comb binder for $9.99. It cost more to ship it because it weighs a ton. It's a dinosaur, but it works. I can comb bind anything I print, those little plastic 19-point comb bindings? I love it. But, printed, I can annotate my thoughts directly on the page.
And annotated, I can tell you the specifics of what I've found.
Redistribution of Wealth: In the introduction, they want everyone to work together to protect environments and ecosystems. Sounds good, right? But further down, it states that it "will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries..." Did you catch that? That's section 1.4. It means what we're doing is expensive, they can't afford it so the developed countries have to pay for it. They also say we will be required to strength the "capacity of international institutions for the implantation of Agenda 21." We have to pay them to carry this out? I don't think so. They're the bully of the school yard, telling us what to do, and we have to pay them to do it?
They also claim that this agenda can't "gather momentum if the developing countries are weighted down by external indebtedness, if development finance is inadequate, if barriers restrict access to markets and if commodity prices and the terms of trade of developing countries remain depressed." We have to make commodities cheaper because they can't afford them?
And in 2, section C, they come out and say it: "Providing adequate financial resources to developing countries." Let's just give them the money. If you'd like a scarier version: section 2.22(g): "Ensure that special factors affecting environment and trade policies in the developing countries are borne in mind in the application of environmental standards, as well as in the use of any trade measures. It is worth noting that standards that are valid in the most advanced countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries;" WHAT? We have to abide by the rules, but because they're poor they don't have to? It will hurt us, but it won't hurt them, because they're poor? So why will it hurt us? Because we have MONEY?
And would you like an explanation as to why Obama is not doing anything about the oil crisis? Found it in Agenda 21: section 2.22 (d): "Deal with the root causes of environment and development problems in a manner that avoids the adoption of environmental measures resulting in unjustified restrictions on trade;" If he makes sure that he solves this oil crisis, he can't stop all oil production. If he makes it a really big deal, he can halt all our oil production and we remain dependent on foreign oil. Agenda 21 supported.
And that's just one aspect of Agenda 21.
Let's look at all the references to women. I'm all for equal rights. But I can't even count the number of times they list the rights of women...I started highlighting it in blue and circling women's groups. They don't list men but a few times, and when they do it's with women. I counted 60 times in the approximately 40 pages I've read so far that women are listed. In section 3.2: An effective strategy for tackling the problems of poverty, development and environment simultaneously should begin by focusing on resources, production and people should cover demographic issues, enhanced health care and focusing on resources, production and people should cover demographics issues, enhanced health care and education, the rights of women, the role of youth and of indigenous people and local communities and a demographic participation process in association with improved governance."
There's a heavy emphasis on helping women determine the spacing of their children. This sounds to me like they want to influence Catholics that birth control is a good idea, as if it wasn't really their choice to have so many children, but their husband was making them do so. No, I am not Catholic.
It's amazing what I used to think was conspiracy theory, and now no longer do. Now, the question is: Are we, as a Nation, considering this? I don't know. I think if the American people were aware of it, they would revolt before allowing it. But we have radicals in the White House, who think just like this. THEY would do this. THEY think like this. I see policy that reflects some of this thinking. We have heard some of this language from our president, haven't we? He is for redistribution of wealth. We have universal health care now. Is he also for Universal Housing? Will he also give land to people who don't have jobs? Where is he going to get that land? From people who own more than an acre? Is he going to come to you, who have 5 acres, or 10 acres, or 20 acres and say you have too much land, we're going to give some of your land to Jose who doesn't have a job and needs that land. He can't pay you for it, but he still needs it for his family, so you get to give it to him, and not get compensated at all. It's your patriotic duty. It's your Godly duty. Go Obama.
Where does it stop? If you hear the words Agenda 21, remember the fall of freedom in Germany. Don't let it happen in America. Stand for Freedom.
Lori Ann Smith
Saturday, June 5, 2010
June Repost of Self Declared Socialists in Congress
Re-Post of Self-declared Socialists in Congress
Here is a list of Self-Delcared Socialists in our Congress....memorize it...carry it with you. I got it from http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm
(Updated June, 2010)
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01) Resigned to run for Governor, March, 2010, The Honorable Charles K. Djou (R-HI) was elected May 22, 2010 in special election.
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19) The Honorable Robert Wexler resigned on January 3, 2010. Vacancy effective January 4, 2010. The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch (D-FL) was elected April 13, 2010 in special election.
They have 7 principles:
Dignified Work
Environmental Justice
Economic Redistribution
Democratic Participation
Community Empowerment
Global Non-Violence
Social Justice.
There are ll members on the Judiciary committee: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Lori Ann Smith
Here is a list of Self-Delcared Socialists in our Congress....memorize it...carry it with you. I got it from http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm
(Updated June, 2010)
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01) Resigned to run for Governor, March, 2010, The Honorable Charles K. Djou (R-HI) was elected May 22, 2010 in special election.
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19) The Honorable Robert Wexler resigned on January 3, 2010. Vacancy effective January 4, 2010. The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch (D-FL) was elected April 13, 2010 in special election.
They have 7 principles:
Dignified Work
Environmental Justice
Economic Redistribution
Democratic Participation
Community Empowerment
Global Non-Violence
Social Justice.
There are ll members on the Judiciary committee: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Lori Ann Smith
(June Reprint) Progresistas en la Historia
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.)
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.)
June 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?
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 and 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? 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 cucumber 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
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 and 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? 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 cucumber 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)