Well, first let me contrast it with Rev. Sharpton's sound bites. I have to admit I only have the sound bites of the Rev. Sharpton's. I have not watched the whole thing. I have it recorded, but haven't had the time to watch the whole thing yet. I did watch the whole 8/28 rally of Glenn Beck, so I know for a fact there were no angry words spoken at his rally. But, the only words taken in a sound bite were angry that I heard. Why is that? Does the Rev. Sharpton know that the only way to stoke the flames of the left is through anger?
He started out with toting this as an anti-Glenn rally, but got caught with "How can you be against restoring honor?" He had to back down. W-w-well, I'm not against honor..." and that's not a direct quote, that's a para-phrasing as if he said it. I also saw the linked-arms-walking picture and they made sure they had their serious faces on, since Beck pointed out how Pelosi and all the other made fun in the last picture. The left can learn, and they learn fast. I'm sure they had the staff meeting: Make sure you look all serious, no laughing.
But, Beck pointed that out, too. They don't learn from history, but they learn enough to correct the mistakes when they want to teach YOU something. They learn when it's a case of Propaganda and cramming something down your throat. Just look at how they change the names of bills. So, why can't they learn that anger doesn't do anything? We hear the anger in their speeches and don't like it.
If they aren't about dividing the races, why did they turn on Dr. Alveda King? It's because she's a Conservative. How dare they say she can't have the dream of her father. How dare they say that she's perverting the dream of her father when she is saying exactly the same thing.
And let me tell you something about the date. Did you look up Romans 8:28? You want to talk about God's Providence? Look up that Scripture. I'll tell you what, since probably you couldn't knock off the dust off of a liberal Bible enough to even open it, I'll type it out for you.
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. - Romans 8:28
Glenn Beck mentioned politics one time in the whole 3 hours and it was to say that he knew his opposition expected this event to be about politics, and he wanted it to be about God. He had American Indians there, people of the Jewish faith, he's Mormon, he had Protestants, Catholics, Black, white, brown, all colors, creeds, you name it. We were Americans first for once. And I was never more proud of my Native American heritage. I've never been ashamed of it, but I was never more proud. And there was one speaker who suggested that all Native Americans need to come off the reservation and become Americans and come to Jesus. Sorry, had to throw that in.
Glenn's rally was one of unity. I can't wait to see if Rev. Sharpton's rally was one of unity, or division. I know that Michelle Obama wants separation of the races. She did a paper in college that suggests she's for keeping the races apart. She's for separate colleges for the races.
I'm learning that my idea of racism is so naive. I always thought of it as not giving a job to one person over another, showing favoritism. I have learned so much through Glenn Beck's research, just as he has. When he admits that he is the whitest of the white, I'm right there with him. I have black friends now, but I grew up in a white high school, in a white town, with one black friend in the whole high school. That was because his dad was a doctor. I didn't know black people until I got in the Navy. I didn't really know discrimination until I had a handicapped child. I'm learning that it's not the same thing. Now does that mean that to understand it, I have to have the tables reversed on me? NO. I think it's awful. I would never do that to anyone. I have a high sense of justice. My mom is from the Little Rock area. She went through segregation riots. But I can't even wrap my mind around throwing acid in a pool with PEOPLE in it. My mom would never let me use the N word....I would have been knocked across the room. Even at 46.
I can understand the hate when directed at racism if you have been through that. But Rev. Sharpton, in response to a caller before the Rally, admitted that he had never been through the 1963 era. Someone, a black caller, said Rev. Sharpton was attempting to take this country back to the era of 1963 in regards to race relations. He claimed he wouldn't know because he wasn't there. So, why is he so angry? Or is this all about politics and dividing the country up so the Left can keep control?
Lori Ann Smith
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
I've started a new tactic
I went to Thomas Bills to search for a bill, and had an Epiphany. I was searching for bills on cap and trade, when I realized there were 8 bills introduced into Congress within a very short time, all between March and June of 2009, all just sitting there in various committees, doing nothing, just tabled. I was wondering, are they waiting until we don't remember they were submitted? Are is it something else? Did Congress want to glut the system so that there were so many bills just sitting there that We, the People couldn't wade through them to find what we were looking for? They (Congress) think we are too stupid to use the date feature to weed out the old bills. I filtered out the old bills and just had them list the bills introduced in July and August to see what would come up. I wanted to see what they are going to fast track in this "summer of recovery."
It's amazing what I'm finding. Did you know during a time when our nation is going broke, they want to send $1,500,000,000 to Haiti to rebuild it (H.R.6021). Since when is it our responsibility as a government to MANDATE that we rebuild a country that has a natural disaster? Did we cause it? Are they going to feed the conspiracy theorists and say they pointed the HAARP system at it and caused a massive earthquake to occur? Is it the United States fault, so we have to pay to correct it? I don't think so. Now Obama is a conspiracy theorist? That would mean he would have to come out and say HAARP is real. Well, Mr. President, what about it? Either that, or you have every intention of bankrupting our country, which is it? Let's borrow money from China and give it to Haiti. We are in debt, and we can not afford to send money out of the country.
And you think all the oil money is supposed to go to victims of the oil spill? There's a bill in Congress that they want it to go to climate change. Don't believe me? Look up S.3641.IS, National Endowment for the Oceans Act. They want to appropriate $1,500,000,000 or more from the oil fund to put in this National endowment for the ocean fund for research to find out how climate change affects our oceans and prepare our coastal regions for climate change. Plus 12.5% we get from any drilling in the Arctic region is supposed to go into this fund. So, the companies are supposed to pay royalties to the government for the oil in the land, and it goes to climate change that no one believes in? Mr. President, once again, why don't we just put Cloward and Piven on the pay rolls? They are apparently running this country......right over the cliff.
And they're gobbling up land in DC:
H. R. 5494
A BILL
To direct the Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain properties to the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES.
(a) National Park Service Properties- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Park Service shall transfer to the District of Columbia by quitclaim deed all right, title, and interest of the United States to the following properties in the District of Columbia:
(1) Square 336, Lot 828, as shown on Assessment and Taxation Plat 3761-Y among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (Shaw Junior High School recreation fields).
(2) Square 542, Lot 85, as referenced on page 104 of Subdivision Book 141 and shown on Map 8634 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (Southwest Library).
(3) Square 2864, Lot 830, as shown on Assessment and Taxation Plat 3495-G among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (Meyer Elementary School).
(4) Reservation 277-A, as shown on page 4 of Subdivision Book 134 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia.
(b) Other Interior Properties- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall transfer to the District of Columbia by quitclaim deed all right, title, and interest of the United States to the following properties in the District of Columbia:
(1) Square 2558, Lot 803, as shown on Assessment and Taxation Plat 65 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (a portion of the Marie H. Reed Community Learning Center).
(2) Square 2558, Lot 810, as shown on Assessment and Taxation Plat 65 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (a portion of the Marie H. Reed Community Learning Center).
So, my next project will be to back up and see just what they submitted in June that is so high priority to pass.
Lori Ann Smith
Standing on the Ramparts
It's amazing what I'm finding. Did you know during a time when our nation is going broke, they want to send $1,500,000,000 to Haiti to rebuild it (H.R.6021). Since when is it our responsibility as a government to MANDATE that we rebuild a country that has a natural disaster? Did we cause it? Are they going to feed the conspiracy theorists and say they pointed the HAARP system at it and caused a massive earthquake to occur? Is it the United States fault, so we have to pay to correct it? I don't think so. Now Obama is a conspiracy theorist? That would mean he would have to come out and say HAARP is real. Well, Mr. President, what about it? Either that, or you have every intention of bankrupting our country, which is it? Let's borrow money from China and give it to Haiti. We are in debt, and we can not afford to send money out of the country.
And you think all the oil money is supposed to go to victims of the oil spill? There's a bill in Congress that they want it to go to climate change. Don't believe me? Look up S.3641.IS, National Endowment for the Oceans Act. They want to appropriate $1,500,000,000 or more from the oil fund to put in this National endowment for the ocean fund for research to find out how climate change affects our oceans and prepare our coastal regions for climate change. Plus 12.5% we get from any drilling in the Arctic region is supposed to go into this fund. So, the companies are supposed to pay royalties to the government for the oil in the land, and it goes to climate change that no one believes in? Mr. President, once again, why don't we just put Cloward and Piven on the pay rolls? They are apparently running this country......right over the cliff.
And they're gobbling up land in DC:
H. R. 5494
A BILL
To direct the Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain properties to the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES.
(a) National Park Service Properties- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Park Service shall transfer to the District of Columbia by quitclaim deed all right, title, and interest of the United States to the following properties in the District of Columbia:
(1) Square 336, Lot 828, as shown on Assessment and Taxation Plat 3761-Y among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (Shaw Junior High School recreation fields).
(2) Square 542, Lot 85, as referenced on page 104 of Subdivision Book 141 and shown on Map 8634 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (Southwest Library).
(3) Square 2864, Lot 830, as shown on Assessment and Taxation Plat 3495-G among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (Meyer Elementary School).
(4) Reservation 277-A, as shown on page 4 of Subdivision Book 134 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia.
(b) Other Interior Properties- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall transfer to the District of Columbia by quitclaim deed all right, title, and interest of the United States to the following properties in the District of Columbia:
(1) Square 2558, Lot 803, as shown on Assessment and Taxation Plat 65 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (a portion of the Marie H. Reed Community Learning Center).
(2) Square 2558, Lot 810, as shown on Assessment and Taxation Plat 65 among the records of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia (a portion of the Marie H. Reed Community Learning Center).
So, my next project will be to back up and see just what they submitted in June that is so high priority to pass.
Lori Ann Smith
Standing on the Ramparts
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Bill With No Name
I am growing weary of the fight. I've been in this fight for a year now, and now they have passed a bill with no name. It's XXXXXXXXXXXXAct of XXXXXXXXX. I'm not kidding. H.R. 1586. They call it the Teacher Bill, but when you look it up, it's called XXXXXXXXXActofXXXXXXX. Why is that? Because it's got so much puke in it that they didn't know what to put in the title, so they just didn't title it.
And there's more. There's an exemption for Texas Schools.
__________________
(B) The Secretary shall not allocate funds to the State of Texas under paragraph (1) unless the Governor of the State provides an assurance to the Secretary that the State will for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 maintain State support for elementary and secondary education at a percentage of the total revenues available to the State that is equal to or greater than the percentage provided for such purpose for fiscal year 2011 prior to the enactment of this Act.
(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (8), no distribution shall be made to the State of Texas or local education agencies therein unless the Governor of Texas makes an assurance to the Secretary that the requirements in paragraphs (11)(A) and (11)(B) will be met, notwithstanding the lack of an application from the Governor of Texas.
_________________
No other state has to promise to provide assurances that they will give the same amount of money to their school system for the next 3 years, except Texas. And the requirements in 11(a) and 11(b)? Well, b is already stated, as maintaining the same amount of money for 3 years. So what is a? It's behaving to a certain code in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. I looked it up.
_________________
(2) ASSESSING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.—Subparagraph (C) of section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) is amended—
(A) in clause (xiv), by striking “and” at the end;
(B) in clause (xv), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
“(xvi) notwithstanding clause (i), at the discretion of the State, provide for out-of-level testing of children with disabilities.”.
_________________
I'm sorry, I live in Texas and I have a child with disabilities. I am very pleased with how my child was educated. And this is not the first state I've lived in. This is not the second state I've lived in. As a matter of fact, this is not the third state I've lived in. The worst state I've gotten services from was Hawaii, Mr. President. I've lived in Hawaii, Missouri, Illinois, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Texas. In all fairness, Illinois was pretty good. I would hate to rank any of them, beyond Hawaii was terrible. I home schooled him in Hawaii. The rest have been great. So why is Texas singled out to prove itself? I think the President hates the fact that we're in the red.
Governor Perry, are you listening? Are you going to stand for this slap in the face? You just got dis'd by the whole United States. I guess now there are 2 states that have been singled out by the United States as bad boys. We've been sent to the corner with Arizona. Two down, 2 to go. How soon until the border states of Canada follow suit? This President will stop at nothing until the United States is the Destroyed States of America.
They didn't tell you about the splitting of foreign taxes from the income that they came from, did they? That was in that bill. They only talk about saving teacher's jobs. They want credit for the taxes they pay on foreign income. That seems to me to encourage business to do their business overseas instead of here at home.
At the bottom of the bill, they have rescinded a huge amount of money from various bills. Where does this money go? Does it go into a discretionary fund to be spent as the Czars see fit? Does it come back to the American people? Does it not get collected as if it hasn't been spent yet? Does it go to pay down the National Debt? Come on, have you EVER seen a politician give back money?
Lori Ann Smith
And there's more. There's an exemption for Texas Schools.
__________________
(B) The Secretary shall not allocate funds to the State of Texas under paragraph (1) unless the Governor of the State provides an assurance to the Secretary that the State will for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 maintain State support for elementary and secondary education at a percentage of the total revenues available to the State that is equal to or greater than the percentage provided for such purpose for fiscal year 2011 prior to the enactment of this Act.
(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (8), no distribution shall be made to the State of Texas or local education agencies therein unless the Governor of Texas makes an assurance to the Secretary that the requirements in paragraphs (11)(A) and (11)(B) will be met, notwithstanding the lack of an application from the Governor of Texas.
_________________
No other state has to promise to provide assurances that they will give the same amount of money to their school system for the next 3 years, except Texas. And the requirements in 11(a) and 11(b)? Well, b is already stated, as maintaining the same amount of money for 3 years. So what is a? It's behaving to a certain code in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. I looked it up.
_________________
(2) ASSESSING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.—Subparagraph (C) of section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) is amended—
(A) in clause (xiv), by striking “and” at the end;
(B) in clause (xv), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
“(xvi) notwithstanding clause (i), at the discretion of the State, provide for out-of-level testing of children with disabilities.”.
_________________
I'm sorry, I live in Texas and I have a child with disabilities. I am very pleased with how my child was educated. And this is not the first state I've lived in. This is not the second state I've lived in. As a matter of fact, this is not the third state I've lived in. The worst state I've gotten services from was Hawaii, Mr. President. I've lived in Hawaii, Missouri, Illinois, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Texas. In all fairness, Illinois was pretty good. I would hate to rank any of them, beyond Hawaii was terrible. I home schooled him in Hawaii. The rest have been great. So why is Texas singled out to prove itself? I think the President hates the fact that we're in the red.
Governor Perry, are you listening? Are you going to stand for this slap in the face? You just got dis'd by the whole United States. I guess now there are 2 states that have been singled out by the United States as bad boys. We've been sent to the corner with Arizona. Two down, 2 to go. How soon until the border states of Canada follow suit? This President will stop at nothing until the United States is the Destroyed States of America.
They didn't tell you about the splitting of foreign taxes from the income that they came from, did they? That was in that bill. They only talk about saving teacher's jobs. They want credit for the taxes they pay on foreign income. That seems to me to encourage business to do their business overseas instead of here at home.
At the bottom of the bill, they have rescinded a huge amount of money from various bills. Where does this money go? Does it go into a discretionary fund to be spent as the Czars see fit? Does it come back to the American people? Does it not get collected as if it hasn't been spent yet? Does it go to pay down the National Debt? Come on, have you EVER seen a politician give back money?
Lori Ann Smith
Monday, August 9, 2010
Internet threats
You've heard all the "Conspiracy Theories" about the government taking over the Internet and making it a public utility so that they can regulate it, right? Well, I believe we've come one step closer to that being a reality. Let me tell you about a real life experience that happened to me last week.
When we moved into this house last year, we set up our utilities, including the Internet, in my name. We've dealt with the government before. I'm the wife, but I pay all the bills in this household. When we've set things up in my husband's name in the past, we've run into, "I'm sorry ma'am we can't make changes without you're husband's permission." Yes, in today's society, in the light of "woman's liberation," they are afraid that I will divorce him and retaliate and ruin him financially. The Discover card is in his name and I can do nothing without his permission. When they changed our address without his permission, I couldn't even change it back.
I put the email account under my name. We have Verizon Fios. We have everything bundled: Fios TV, Internet and Phone come on one bill. I do have the ability to access my bills on line. I send my bills in by mail, I don't pay on-line. Lately, I've been receiving a screen saying I can change over to a new system that allows me to access everything from one place. It's new and improved. My email will be linked to my bills. I didn't really want that, so I've been clicking remind me later and going on to my email. I also check my husband's email, because he just doesn't have time. I delete all the junk from his account, and tell him if he has anything important that needs to be looked at right away.
Well, last week, I couldn't access his account. It wouldn't let me log in at all. So I got on live chat to find out why. I told the representative that I was the main account, he was a sub account, he was still here if she needed his permission to work on his account, yada, yada, yada. Actually, there was no permission problems, which surprised me. She said if I had the email address and password, she assumed I had permission. Wow, how simple was that? Almost troubling. I have to remind myself to change that password.
It went smoothly, I told her that I didn't want to change to the new system, and that's when I discovered that there wasn't a choice. Everyone would be required to change over. I didn't think about it much while we were fixing the problem. It's when the dust settled that it hit me. Are the other companies doing this as well? What better way to link it as a public utility?
Now they truly can say it's a public utility. You pay your bills online. You access your TV, Internet options, Telephone options online. Everything is linked together. Your credit cards and banking is done online. They will have their arguments for regulating the Internet. They will be able to exact a fee for every transaction. If they are linked with your phone bill, how easy will it be to charge a small fee for every email? All they have to do is tack it on.
You can say it's conspiracy theory if you want, but look at the history of the past 18 months. America spoke with not wanting health care. Missouri spoke with 71% saying that they aren't going to force their population to take it, and ole Bobby Gibbs said it doesn't matter what Missouri thinks, they will take it. America said you can't tax us, so they said it's not a tax, it's a good. After it got passed and America said it's against the Commerce Law to make someone who is a citizen pay for something just to be a citizen, they backtrack and say, it's not a good, it's a tax. The majority of America was against the jobs bill....it got passed anyway. The majority of America is against the Cap and Trade and there are pieces of it in place already. Don't believe me? Look into it. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sets aside "$2,400,000,000 for necessary expenses to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration technologies as authorized under section 702 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007." If they aren't planning on passing Cap and Trade, why are they setting aside money for carbon capture? Additionally, "For an additional amount for `Procurement, Acquisition and Construction', $600,000,000, for accelerating satellite development and acquisition, acquiring climate sensors and climate modeling capacity, and establishing climate data records: Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling." That's a lot of money dedicated to climate when the science has proven that global warming is wrong, that we warm, then cool.
If you need more proof, in the Jobs bill: "providing information and technical assistance to any small business owner that faces an increase in costs as a result of the enactment of any program to impose a tax on carbon emissions, either directly or through the operation of a cap and trade system on such emission limits.'."
And up for a vote:
American Energy Innovation Act (Introduced in House - IH)
SEC. 3504. TAX CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURED FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES AND USED IN ENHANCED OIL AND NATURAL GAS RECOVERY.
SEC. 45R. CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURED FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES AND USED AS A TERTIARY INJECTANT IN ENHANCED OIL AND NATURAL GAS RECOVERY.
H. R. 3032
`(ii) cost savings and revenue gains made possible through carbon credit trading opportunities and Federal and State renewable energy and energy efficiency tax relief programs, purchase incentives, and rebate programs;
develop a carbon footprint website that contains
`(i) educational and technical information on how small business concerns can reduce their carbon footprint;
`(ii) links to tools and information relating to carbon footprints available on other websites; and
`(iii) a carbon footprint calculator which can calculate a rough estimate of a small business concern's carbon emissions based on, but not limited to, the concern's electricity usage, heating fuel usage, and fleet mileage; ...
_________________
Do you still think just because the American people don't want the Internet to be regulated, that it won't happen? These elitists in Washington are power hungry, and drunk on their own power. The only way to cure them is cold turkey. Cut them off the power drink immediately.
I can see November from my front porch and it's incumbent-free!
Lori Ann Smith
When we moved into this house last year, we set up our utilities, including the Internet, in my name. We've dealt with the government before. I'm the wife, but I pay all the bills in this household. When we've set things up in my husband's name in the past, we've run into, "I'm sorry ma'am we can't make changes without you're husband's permission." Yes, in today's society, in the light of "woman's liberation," they are afraid that I will divorce him and retaliate and ruin him financially. The Discover card is in his name and I can do nothing without his permission. When they changed our address without his permission, I couldn't even change it back.
I put the email account under my name. We have Verizon Fios. We have everything bundled: Fios TV, Internet and Phone come on one bill. I do have the ability to access my bills on line. I send my bills in by mail, I don't pay on-line. Lately, I've been receiving a screen saying I can change over to a new system that allows me to access everything from one place. It's new and improved. My email will be linked to my bills. I didn't really want that, so I've been clicking remind me later and going on to my email. I also check my husband's email, because he just doesn't have time. I delete all the junk from his account, and tell him if he has anything important that needs to be looked at right away.
Well, last week, I couldn't access his account. It wouldn't let me log in at all. So I got on live chat to find out why. I told the representative that I was the main account, he was a sub account, he was still here if she needed his permission to work on his account, yada, yada, yada. Actually, there was no permission problems, which surprised me. She said if I had the email address and password, she assumed I had permission. Wow, how simple was that? Almost troubling. I have to remind myself to change that password.
It went smoothly, I told her that I didn't want to change to the new system, and that's when I discovered that there wasn't a choice. Everyone would be required to change over. I didn't think about it much while we were fixing the problem. It's when the dust settled that it hit me. Are the other companies doing this as well? What better way to link it as a public utility?
Now they truly can say it's a public utility. You pay your bills online. You access your TV, Internet options, Telephone options online. Everything is linked together. Your credit cards and banking is done online. They will have their arguments for regulating the Internet. They will be able to exact a fee for every transaction. If they are linked with your phone bill, how easy will it be to charge a small fee for every email? All they have to do is tack it on.
You can say it's conspiracy theory if you want, but look at the history of the past 18 months. America spoke with not wanting health care. Missouri spoke with 71% saying that they aren't going to force their population to take it, and ole Bobby Gibbs said it doesn't matter what Missouri thinks, they will take it. America said you can't tax us, so they said it's not a tax, it's a good. After it got passed and America said it's against the Commerce Law to make someone who is a citizen pay for something just to be a citizen, they backtrack and say, it's not a good, it's a tax. The majority of America was against the jobs bill....it got passed anyway. The majority of America is against the Cap and Trade and there are pieces of it in place already. Don't believe me? Look into it. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sets aside "$2,400,000,000 for necessary expenses to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration technologies as authorized under section 702 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007." If they aren't planning on passing Cap and Trade, why are they setting aside money for carbon capture? Additionally, "For an additional amount for `Procurement, Acquisition and Construction', $600,000,000, for accelerating satellite development and acquisition, acquiring climate sensors and climate modeling capacity, and establishing climate data records: Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling." That's a lot of money dedicated to climate when the science has proven that global warming is wrong, that we warm, then cool.
If you need more proof, in the Jobs bill: "providing information and technical assistance to any small business owner that faces an increase in costs as a result of the enactment of any program to impose a tax on carbon emissions, either directly or through the operation of a cap and trade system on such emission limits.'."
And up for a vote:
American Energy Innovation Act (Introduced in House - IH)
SEC. 3504. TAX CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURED FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES AND USED IN ENHANCED OIL AND NATURAL GAS RECOVERY.
SEC. 45R. CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURED FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES AND USED AS A TERTIARY INJECTANT IN ENHANCED OIL AND NATURAL GAS RECOVERY.
H. R. 3032
`(ii) cost savings and revenue gains made possible through carbon credit trading opportunities and Federal and State renewable energy and energy efficiency tax relief programs, purchase incentives, and rebate programs;
develop a carbon footprint website that contains
`(i) educational and technical information on how small business concerns can reduce their carbon footprint;
`(ii) links to tools and information relating to carbon footprints available on other websites; and
`(iii) a carbon footprint calculator which can calculate a rough estimate of a small business concern's carbon emissions based on, but not limited to, the concern's electricity usage, heating fuel usage, and fleet mileage; ...
_________________
Do you still think just because the American people don't want the Internet to be regulated, that it won't happen? These elitists in Washington are power hungry, and drunk on their own power. The only way to cure them is cold turkey. Cut them off the power drink immediately.
I can see November from my front porch and it's incumbent-free!
Lori Ann Smith
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Reprint Progresistas en la historia - August
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.)
August Repost of Progressive in History
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month, along with the names of all the progressive Congressmen. This is something we can not forget. We will not forget as long as I have breath in me. If the Progressives in office want America to forget, they will have to erase it from our minds, our print, our electronic media. In the old days, you could just burn the books. What are you going to do now, Obama?
August Note: We've now passed the Jobs bill, even though Americans didn't want it either. And hidden in the Jobs bill, are parts of Cap and Trade, waiting for the rest of it. Sooner and later, Cap and Trade, also known as Cap and Tax, will be passed against the will of the people. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable.
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
August Note: We've now passed the Jobs bill, even though Americans didn't want it either. And hidden in the Jobs bill, are parts of Cap and Trade, waiting for the rest of it. Sooner and later, Cap and Trade, also known as Cap and Tax, will be passed against the will of the people. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable.
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
What's Coming Up Next?
Well, it's not that I have a crystal ball, or anything, but I'm learning the tactics of my enemy. I'm going on record with a prediction.
First, let me set it up for you, and you'll see how easy it was to predict. It's coming up on the beginning of the school season. It's also coming up on the beginning of flu season. I predict they'll be pushing 2 things: Flu shots and the HPV shots for boys and girls. I've found 2 articles. One was written in Canada where there is a high risk of girls becoming sterile after having the HPV shot. This is for human papillomavirus (HPV), and the article talks about a girl getting a degenerative muscle disease after getting the shot. Her father is on a quest to discover if the shot is indeed what caused this. This was in 2008. I don't know what the results were. So even though studies show that most cervical cancer shows up in women in their 40's, we are treating girls as young as 9 years of age. And now we're treating our boys as young as 9. I have proof we're treating our boys. I was pressured (though I refused) to give my 11 year old this shot. I was told that boys are a carrier, even though they are not affected, of HPV. They can pass it to girls during sex and cause them to get cervical cancer. I'm sorry, my 11 yr old doesn't have sex yet. He doesn't date, isn't alone with girls to have the opportunity.
So, what is the harm in this? Well, if you listen to the conspiracy theories, there is a sterility drug in this shot. With everything I've learned over the last year, do I want to take that chance with my child? Are there any honest people out there actually doing the REAL research out there? We have learned that there is a team called Journolist who conspired to hide information about Senator Obama in order to get him elected President. They decided not to ask certain questions because it would hurt his chances of getting elected.....excuse me? That's their job. What other truths are inconvenient to them?
So that makes me wonder what their agenda is? What is the agenda of this administration? I've read Agenda 21 and it seems to match the things I see coming out of Washington these days. It matches much more closely than the Constitution. Agenda 21 is a world wide thing of the elitists. I know that eugenics is in Agenda 21. They want population control. When you are deciding who to get rid of, you have to make hard decisions. Who do they target when they give vaccinations? They gave them free to the poor. Hmmm. The elite consider the poor the scum of the earth, don't they?
That's another "conspiracy theory" according to the left. It's been around the Internet for over a year. "Don't get the H1N1 (Swine flu) because they put stuff in it that will make our kids sterile!" Have you read the side effects for Squalene? They are the same as for Gulf War Syndrome:
Chronic Fatigue
Signs and symptoms involving skin (including skin rashes and unusual hair loss)
Headache
Muscle pain
Neurologic signs or symptoms (nervous system disorders which could manifest themselves in numbness in one's arm, for instance)
Neuropsychological signs or symptoms (including memory loss)
Signs or symptoms involving upper or lower respiratory system
Sleep disturbances
Gastrointestinal signs or symptoms (including recurrent diarrhea and constipation)
Cardiovascular signs or symptoms
Menstrual disorders
It's been listed as an auto-immune disorder. I have an auto-immune disorder called celiac disease. I've been told that auto-immune disorders, breed auto-immune disorders, meaning if you have one, you are at high risk for more. So, I am at high risk to get Lupus, or diabetes, or rheumatoid arthritis, or whatever. I will not be getting any vaccination. Both my children have celiac disease, so they will not either. This, of course, will be a private decision for you to make yourself after you get all your information. I just have to wonder why they have all the adjuvant stuff in it, and not just a dead virus, and then pump it into our children and pregnant women first.
You haven't heard anything about the Swine flu since last flu season. Remember how we were supposed to have a pandemic? It was a push for the vaccine and they were supposed to run out and they even pushed to grow it in monkeys because the conventional way didn't grow it fast enough. Is that scary or what? What do you want to bet, the government comes out with a warning that this year is going to be even worse than last year, and we need to jump out now and inoculate everyone before there's a pandemic of massive proportions and the world comes to an end. There could be troops in the streets to make sure everyone gets their vaccinations. It could be martial law.
Well, there are my 2 predictions: the government will push for HPV vaccinations for boys and girls as young as 9 years old, and there will be a massive push for swine flu vaccinations and a scare of a pandemic again.
Lori Ann Smith
First, let me set it up for you, and you'll see how easy it was to predict. It's coming up on the beginning of the school season. It's also coming up on the beginning of flu season. I predict they'll be pushing 2 things: Flu shots and the HPV shots for boys and girls. I've found 2 articles. One was written in Canada where there is a high risk of girls becoming sterile after having the HPV shot. This is for human papillomavirus (HPV), and the article talks about a girl getting a degenerative muscle disease after getting the shot. Her father is on a quest to discover if the shot is indeed what caused this. This was in 2008. I don't know what the results were. So even though studies show that most cervical cancer shows up in women in their 40's, we are treating girls as young as 9 years of age. And now we're treating our boys as young as 9. I have proof we're treating our boys. I was pressured (though I refused) to give my 11 year old this shot. I was told that boys are a carrier, even though they are not affected, of HPV. They can pass it to girls during sex and cause them to get cervical cancer. I'm sorry, my 11 yr old doesn't have sex yet. He doesn't date, isn't alone with girls to have the opportunity.
So, what is the harm in this? Well, if you listen to the conspiracy theories, there is a sterility drug in this shot. With everything I've learned over the last year, do I want to take that chance with my child? Are there any honest people out there actually doing the REAL research out there? We have learned that there is a team called Journolist who conspired to hide information about Senator Obama in order to get him elected President. They decided not to ask certain questions because it would hurt his chances of getting elected.....excuse me? That's their job. What other truths are inconvenient to them?
So that makes me wonder what their agenda is? What is the agenda of this administration? I've read Agenda 21 and it seems to match the things I see coming out of Washington these days. It matches much more closely than the Constitution. Agenda 21 is a world wide thing of the elitists. I know that eugenics is in Agenda 21. They want population control. When you are deciding who to get rid of, you have to make hard decisions. Who do they target when they give vaccinations? They gave them free to the poor. Hmmm. The elite consider the poor the scum of the earth, don't they?
That's another "conspiracy theory" according to the left. It's been around the Internet for over a year. "Don't get the H1N1 (Swine flu) because they put stuff in it that will make our kids sterile!" Have you read the side effects for Squalene? They are the same as for Gulf War Syndrome:
Chronic Fatigue
Signs and symptoms involving skin (including skin rashes and unusual hair loss)
Headache
Muscle pain
Neurologic signs or symptoms (nervous system disorders which could manifest themselves in numbness in one's arm, for instance)
Neuropsychological signs or symptoms (including memory loss)
Signs or symptoms involving upper or lower respiratory system
Sleep disturbances
Gastrointestinal signs or symptoms (including recurrent diarrhea and constipation)
Cardiovascular signs or symptoms
Menstrual disorders
It's been listed as an auto-immune disorder. I have an auto-immune disorder called celiac disease. I've been told that auto-immune disorders, breed auto-immune disorders, meaning if you have one, you are at high risk for more. So, I am at high risk to get Lupus, or diabetes, or rheumatoid arthritis, or whatever. I will not be getting any vaccination. Both my children have celiac disease, so they will not either. This, of course, will be a private decision for you to make yourself after you get all your information. I just have to wonder why they have all the adjuvant stuff in it, and not just a dead virus, and then pump it into our children and pregnant women first.
You haven't heard anything about the Swine flu since last flu season. Remember how we were supposed to have a pandemic? It was a push for the vaccine and they were supposed to run out and they even pushed to grow it in monkeys because the conventional way didn't grow it fast enough. Is that scary or what? What do you want to bet, the government comes out with a warning that this year is going to be even worse than last year, and we need to jump out now and inoculate everyone before there's a pandemic of massive proportions and the world comes to an end. There could be troops in the streets to make sure everyone gets their vaccinations. It could be martial law.
Well, there are my 2 predictions: the government will push for HPV vaccinations for boys and girls as young as 9 years old, and there will be a massive push for swine flu vaccinations and a scare of a pandemic again.
Lori Ann Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)