I have an adult son on Medicaid (SSI), and I just received a letter that they will be changing his Medicaid. I got one earlier, but figured it didn't really apply to me, as I don't use the medical services. He is covered on our insurance (military Tricare Prime), and his pediatrician doesn't accept Medicaid...but he does Tricare Prime, which is odd, but that's another article.
This sort of ties in with another article I did, about free cell phones for those on any government program. We had gotten a flyer attached to our door (I guess they just hit everyone) about this very thing. If you were on a government program (I believe it even included unemployment), you could qualify for a free cell phone (texting was extra), with up to 200 free minutes a month.
This new letter basically told me that I had no choice but to go with the change. I'm going to get a service coordinator...I wonder how much that costs the government? They are going to add service coordinators to everyone on a government program? Either they are going to have to add a bunch more employees to an already bloated government, or they will be stretched so thin as to be of no use. I'm one of the lucky ones and don't ever need to call Social Security for a problem. I did in the beginning, and it took them 3 months to get my name right (I've been married for 21 years and they were using my maiden name) and my address. I can hardly wait to see how they are when they are "coordinating" every thing. Yea. Government "efficiency" at it's best.
In a nut shell, this is what my letter said. First, I don't believe they gave me a choice. Second, it states if you're in a nursing home, you can't change. What? That would be doubling the services? Since when has that stopped the government? There's a veiled threat at the end. If they don't hear from me by January 14, 2011, I'll continue with what I have, but I won't have a primary care giver, health plan, or a service coordinator.
So, I have 2 choices: Molina Healthcare of Texas, or Superior Health Plan Plus. Molina offers up to 18 one-way trips to doctor visits after all Medicare ride benefits are used (one-way? does that mean 9 actual visits, or find a way home yourself?); Up to $500 a year for exams, x-rays, fillings, tooth pulling, and 2 cleanings for age 21 and over. Other services are 25% off...does that mean they aren't covered anymore? I'll also get a $20 gift card for over-the-counter meds every 3 months (on request); PRE-PROGRAMMED CELL PHONE (what is pre-programmed?); Weight watchers membership (What?) and 1 Emergency Preparedness kit for each family.
The Superior program offers horse-riding therapy for certain members age 20 and under; up to $15 for membership in a gym. And that's it.
I haven't called to verify some of these items. I plan on asking 1) do I have to take the phone? 2) is membership in Weight Watchers mandatory? 3) Is the program even necessary if I have a primary care giver that doesn't take Medicaid in the first place.
On another piece of paper in this packet they sent me is a list of common questions. It states that this program is required for all Medicaid recipients over age 21 who receive SSI; guess I got my answer to that one. My son turns 21 in May. I don't want him to have a government provided, pre-PROGRAMMED cell phone. I want him to have a cell phone that he can call me if I'm at the grocery store and the power goes off, but not from the government. My son is capable of being by himself for a couple hours, but I'm usually with him. What does he need a phone for? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I know they can put tracking devices in phones. Heck, just a GPS in a phone would tell them where that person is at all times. Do we need to go there? The government knowing where all the people on any government program are at all times?
I think I may just let it lapse, and see if they force me to take a program. I don't use Medicaid anyway. And as soon as our other house sells, we're stopping SSI.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
A Few Thoughts on Bills In Congress
I'm fairly new to politics. I have to admit I don't fully understand the process of how a bill becomes law, beyond Conjunction Junction shows when I was a kid. I always (with blind acceptance, I suppose), assumed a Congressman wrote the bill, and they voted on it. If he/she was from the House, they voted first, and then the Senate would make amendments and vote, then it went to the President.
I've been interested in politics since the health care bill passed. What is that, 2 years in March, or does it just feel that long? Now I realize a lot more goes into it than that simple explanation from my youth. First, I'm ashamed to admit that I have fallen asleep in my duty to be vigilant and watch the government. I know (now) that this happened under the Bush administration, and Clinton and Bush 1 and probably further back than that. It doesn't have a party.
So here is my new understanding of how a bill is passed in Congress:
First a Congressman writes it (we'll say it originated in the House of Representatives). The rest of the Congressmen in the House (some who don't like it at all) will add incentives to it so they can tolerate the bill. They want to make sure that their state gets something in return for signing off on this bill. If it was put up by a Democrat, then the Republicans will ask for more just so they can tolerate it, or so they can explain to the people in their state, "But WE'RE getting X out of this bill, even if we have to swallow the parts we don't like." Same for the other side. So, they finally decide on all the pork that's going into the bill, and now it looks nothing like the original one that was put forward. So they have to give it a good, and usually long name, to include the major points. Some things are hidden on purpose so no one knows unless they read it all. Things like subsidies for farmers, even though the bill was possibly a military bill.
Then they send it to the Senate. They read it on the floor of the Senate, and whatever party originated it, will add more pork to it so their state gets even more bennies from it. The other side will add even more pork so that they can go to their state and say, "We're fighting for you." Now the bill is even bigger. It's sort of like government in general...growing daily.
They don't tell the public about it at all, because they are ruling FOR us. Only those who can wade through thousands of bills even know it's about to be signed. And who has the time to read ALL of the bill(s) that are up for a vote?
Like I said, this is not a party thing. It's bipartisan.
What can we, as Americans do about this? We've made a start. We've woke up. We formed the Tea Party and told both parties that we would no longer elect anyone unless they were fiscal conservatives. We made great strides over the past election, if they were honest in what they said. I believe most of the ones that retained their seats were possibly just going with the flow of public sentiment. They are concerned with their career in politics. In my opinion, career and politics should not fall in the same sentence. Anyone left in the political arena for more than 3 terms has a chance of becoming corrupt. I think we should have term limits for 2 or 3 terms. There are some congressmen who have been there for longer than I've been alive (and that's 47 years).
Now, what can we do besides push for term limits? Their pay AND their pension should be based on how long they were in office. Why should a congressman that is kicked out due to elections (meaning he did a bad job) after one term get thousands of dollars for a pension just like a congressman who has been in for 47 years? And starting them out at what an 0-1 in the military gets might be incentive to get them to do a good job. By the way, an 0-1 would be a Leutenant Junior Grade in the Navy, I'm not sure what that would be in the other services. I'm willing to give them officer's pay, instead of enlisted because enlisted is SO low. Does that say something for our military?
And we should make it to where Congress is NEVER allowed to vote on their own pay increases. It should be put before the American people whether they get a pay raise or not. If public vote says they're doing a good job, they'll get raise. My husband doesn't get a pay increase just because the cost of living went up. As a matter of fact, I don't think he's gotten a raise in about 4 years. The last raise he got was because he threatened to leave, so they gave him a raise to keep him there. Why should the government be any different? And as far as that goes, it should include any government employee. Pay raises should not be automatic.
That would be a good start, along with NO PORK in any bill. And none of these frivolous bills. You know the ones: Some Senator or Congressman dies and they want to rename every federal building out there after him/her. Or they want to designate a day for pickle growers of America. We have enough days designated for different things. All that is, is because they think their voters want it. I have news for you, Congress: We don't want it! If we have to tighten our belts in our homes, YOU SHOULD TOO!
Lori Ann Smith
I've been interested in politics since the health care bill passed. What is that, 2 years in March, or does it just feel that long? Now I realize a lot more goes into it than that simple explanation from my youth. First, I'm ashamed to admit that I have fallen asleep in my duty to be vigilant and watch the government. I know (now) that this happened under the Bush administration, and Clinton and Bush 1 and probably further back than that. It doesn't have a party.
So here is my new understanding of how a bill is passed in Congress:
First a Congressman writes it (we'll say it originated in the House of Representatives). The rest of the Congressmen in the House (some who don't like it at all) will add incentives to it so they can tolerate the bill. They want to make sure that their state gets something in return for signing off on this bill. If it was put up by a Democrat, then the Republicans will ask for more just so they can tolerate it, or so they can explain to the people in their state, "But WE'RE getting X out of this bill, even if we have to swallow the parts we don't like." Same for the other side. So, they finally decide on all the pork that's going into the bill, and now it looks nothing like the original one that was put forward. So they have to give it a good, and usually long name, to include the major points. Some things are hidden on purpose so no one knows unless they read it all. Things like subsidies for farmers, even though the bill was possibly a military bill.
Then they send it to the Senate. They read it on the floor of the Senate, and whatever party originated it, will add more pork to it so their state gets even more bennies from it. The other side will add even more pork so that they can go to their state and say, "We're fighting for you." Now the bill is even bigger. It's sort of like government in general...growing daily.
They don't tell the public about it at all, because they are ruling FOR us. Only those who can wade through thousands of bills even know it's about to be signed. And who has the time to read ALL of the bill(s) that are up for a vote?
Like I said, this is not a party thing. It's bipartisan.
What can we, as Americans do about this? We've made a start. We've woke up. We formed the Tea Party and told both parties that we would no longer elect anyone unless they were fiscal conservatives. We made great strides over the past election, if they were honest in what they said. I believe most of the ones that retained their seats were possibly just going with the flow of public sentiment. They are concerned with their career in politics. In my opinion, career and politics should not fall in the same sentence. Anyone left in the political arena for more than 3 terms has a chance of becoming corrupt. I think we should have term limits for 2 or 3 terms. There are some congressmen who have been there for longer than I've been alive (and that's 47 years).
Now, what can we do besides push for term limits? Their pay AND their pension should be based on how long they were in office. Why should a congressman that is kicked out due to elections (meaning he did a bad job) after one term get thousands of dollars for a pension just like a congressman who has been in for 47 years? And starting them out at what an 0-1 in the military gets might be incentive to get them to do a good job. By the way, an 0-1 would be a Leutenant Junior Grade in the Navy, I'm not sure what that would be in the other services. I'm willing to give them officer's pay, instead of enlisted because enlisted is SO low. Does that say something for our military?
And we should make it to where Congress is NEVER allowed to vote on their own pay increases. It should be put before the American people whether they get a pay raise or not. If public vote says they're doing a good job, they'll get raise. My husband doesn't get a pay increase just because the cost of living went up. As a matter of fact, I don't think he's gotten a raise in about 4 years. The last raise he got was because he threatened to leave, so they gave him a raise to keep him there. Why should the government be any different? And as far as that goes, it should include any government employee. Pay raises should not be automatic.
That would be a good start, along with NO PORK in any bill. And none of these frivolous bills. You know the ones: Some Senator or Congressman dies and they want to rename every federal building out there after him/her. Or they want to designate a day for pickle growers of America. We have enough days designated for different things. All that is, is because they think their voters want it. I have news for you, Congress: We don't want it! If we have to tighten our belts in our homes, YOU SHOULD TOO!
Lori Ann Smith
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Reprint Progresistas en la historia - December
Reprint Progresistas en la historia - December
Reprint Progresistas en la historia
I have committed to reposted this as well, every month. Please help me get this out to our friends who still think best in their native language.
(NOTE: This is a reprint of my Socialists in History, in Spanish.)
Progresistas en la historia
La educación es nuestra mejor defensa. Me he comprometido a publicar algo cada mes, junto con los nombres de los Congresistas progresistas de la historia. Esto es algo que no podemos olvidar. No lo olvidaremos mientras yo aun tenga aliento. Si los progresistas de la oficina quieren que América olvide, tendrán que borrar nuestras memorias, nuestros escritos, nuestros medios electrónicos. En tiempos pasados bastaba con quemar los libros. Obama: ¿Qué esta usted hacienda ahora?
Progresistas en la historia
Mi esposo tiene un excelente set de libros de historia, a nivel de colegio, sorprendente a la vista. De hecho, estos libros son los que usé para mi Carta Abierta al presidente Obama (La cual deberé publicar después). Me ha estado inquietando el concepto del plan de 100 años que los Progresistas tuvieron, y aunque nadie ha salido a decir que ellos tenían un plan de 100 años, de estos libro saqué la idea. Un par de veces se me ha pedido explicar esto, así que eso intento hacer ahora.
Al cambio de siglo, los liberales escogieron llamarse Progresistas porque ellos calcularon que la gente estaría con el progreso. En ese momento hicimos saltos enormes en el progreso. Nuevos inventos de esa época: el teléfono, la luz eléctrica, el automóvil, las calles para carros, los aeroplanos, las fotos con movimiento; el mercado de bienes se desarrollo rápidamente, los granjeros disfrutaron de una prosperidad sin precedentes y el oro se descubrió en 1896 en Alaska. A pesar del pánico de los bancos en 1907, había un marco de ambiente prospero. Teníamos una mentalidad de progreso, de prosperidad en América. Todos los progresistas tuvieron que hacer lo que los relacionaba con la reforma y el progreso. Usted tuvo que tener un gran gobierno para poder tener progreso en sus mentes.
Para esa época, ellos habían establecido el Darwinismo como un hecho. Los más aptos sobreviven. Los otros mueren. Hay una cita de John D. Rockefeller: “El crecimiento de un negocio grande es meramente la supervivencia de los mejores adaptados... Esto no es una tendencia maligna en los negocios. Es meramente el trabajo de la ley de la naturaleza y la ley de Dios”. Así que poniendo estos conceptos juntos, ellos establecieron como un hecho que aquellos en contra de ellos estaban en contra del progreso y que morirían por ser los débiles. Conformaron la elite, una forma más alta de sociedad, mas desarrollada. Ellos también insistían en que los Estados Unidos era una democracia o que debía serlo. Somos una Republica no una Democracia. Pero como se ve aquí, los progresistas eran la elite, no los conservadores. Ellos no eran el hombre común.
En 1911, ellos dirigieron su agenda al sistema educativo. Charles A. Ellwood dijo que las escuelas deberían ser usadas como “un instrumento de conciencia de la reconstrucción social”. Los progresistas quisieron rechazar el aprendizaje religioso y humano (se tomó este como Humanidades o Artes) y experimentar con lo que trabajaría. Ellos querían “socializar” a la juventud. Es allí cuando comenzó la educación centrada en el niño. Esto hizo que las escuelas se fueran camino abajo hasta llegar a lo que tenemos ahora, con el Departamento de Educación tomando el control sobre los maestros dentro del salón de clases.
Los progresistas incluso arrasaron con el movimiento Cristiano, según estos textos, a los que llamaron los detractores (gospellers) sociales. Fueron llamados los atacantes mas viciados del sistema económico americano, pidiendo una reforma de nuestro sistema fiscal. Así pues, temprano en los 1900s, los socialistas se habían infiltrado en las iglesias reclamando reformas y usando la palabra de Dios como su apoyo. Ellos son los que básicamente estuvieron en contra del mercado libre y comenzaron todo este movimiento en contra de Dios para hacerse ricos. Fue allí cuando el muckraking se volvió popular. Adivino que es esto lo que ellos han estado haciendo. Exponer artículos se volvió una practica popular porque la gente estaba hambrienta por conocer la verdad de lo que realmente estaba pasando. Ellos llamaron a David Graham Phillips el traidor del Senado... ¿Suena familiar?
Originalmente, los partidos democráticos eran denominados partidos privados y excluían a los negros. Incluso después de la 14ava Enmienda, a los negros solo se les permitía votar en las elecciones generales. Supongo que no querían que ellos votaran hasta que hubieran decidido por quien ellos podían votar. El sur se volvió sólidamente Democrático. Los progresistas eran aquellos que reclamaban por la segregación. Se volvieron hacia los votos de los negros. En los 1800s, no había segregación, había una separación natural, pero no una forzada segregación. Para la Primera Guerra Mundial, una segregación extensa se había establecido en los estados de la vieja Confederación y los estados vecinos. En 1930, la ordenanza de Birmingham prohibió que negros y blancos jugaran juntos domino o damas. Hay que anotar dos cosas: La segregación fue impuesta por los blancos. La superioridad blanca fue proclamada y la inferioridad negra fue asumida. Booker T. Washington, un prominente líder negro, le pidió a todos: “sufrir en silencio” y ejercitar “la paciencia, (forbearance and patience have the same meaning) y el autocontrol en medio de las condiciones que se vivían”. El quería que ellos mejoraran y compitieran en el mercado. ¡Qué hombre tan inteligente!, mucho más allá de su época. Pero tengo que admitir que yo no creo que hubiera podido hacerlo bajo esas condiciones. Yo creo que todo fue orquestado para escoger el chivo expiatorio para futuros planes. Y es despreciable escoger una raza completa para estos planes…
¿Sabía usted que en 1894 ellos intentaron institucionalizar un ingreso fiscal pero encontraron que era anticonstitucional? La constitución dice que los impuestos deben ser repartidos a los estados de acuerdo a su población, por consentimiento… y eso no es un ingreso fiscal, ¿Acaso sí? Los progresistas se salieron de esta enmendando la cuenta tarifaria. Esta fue nuestra primera redistribución de la abundancia, de los ricos hacia los subsidiados o improductivos en la sociedad. 1913 es también cuando nosotros ratificamos la elección directa de nuestros senadores. Originalmente, los senadores eran representantes de los estados, no de la gente. Se suponía ser un sistema de balance y equilibrio, así los estados tendrían algo de control sobre el congreso.
Los progresistas tuvieron el poder nacional desde 1901 hasta 1921, abarcando las presidencias de Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, y Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt se refirió a su programa como la Repartición Cuadrática y Wilson tuvo su Nueva Libertad. Ninguno profesó ser socialista, pero ambos fijaron el país en una trayectoria socialista. El mismo Rossevelt dijo: “El Nuevo Nacionalismo pone la necesidad nacional antes de la ventaja personal o seccional… Este nuevo Nacionalismo ve al poder ejecutivo como el administrador del bienestar público. Exige de la judicatura que se interese sobre todo en el bienestar humano mas que en la propiedad…” Wilson dijo de su Nueva Libertad: “Yo creo que ha llegado el tiempo cuando el gobierno de este país, tanto nacional como estatal, establezca el escenario… para que la justicia de los hombres actué en cada relación de la vida… Sin la interferencia vigilante, la interferencia resoluta, del gobierno no puede haber juego justo entre los individuos y las instituciones de gran alcance tales como confiables. La libertad es hoy algo más que venir a menos.
El programa de un gobierno de libertad debe, en estos días, ser meramente positivo, no negativo; En otras palabras, es trabajo del gobierno ser pro-activo (dinámico)
El libro de historia dice que en los 1920s, los intelectuales se sintieron alienados por América. Ellos escaparon a Europa.
La Gran Depresión comenzó con la caída del mercado de 1929. Herbert Hoover era el presidente y era considerado como un presidente frio e insensible. En realidad, él creía que el gobierno no debía jugar ningún papel para sacar a los americanos de los lugares bajos donde estaban, que eso le tocaba a las caridades y negocios privados. El decía que una vez que el gobierno se convirtiera en el salvador, ellos dependerían de alguna manera y para siempre de la ayuda del gobierno. ¿Suena familiar? La Depresión fue el final de los conservadores en el poder. Así que los conservadores solo tuvieron el poder de 1922-1932. En 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt fue elegido y los progresistas regresaron al poder. El acusó a la administración del momento de gastar mucho pero dijo que él gastaría dinero en los ciudadanos americanos para liberarlos de la hambruna durante la depresión. ¿Suena esto familiar? Culpar a la administración pasada y gastar, gastar, gastar, pero, tengo excusa para esto.
En ningún momento de la historia ninguna administración ha hecho tanto en sus primeros 100 días para “cuidar” de la gente americana, o demostró más autoridad sobre nuestra economía. A menos que usted esté contando la presente administración. Llegó un punto en el que Roosevelt abiertamente intimidó al congreso, diciéndoles que si ellos no actuaban, él tomaría el poder y actuaría por si mismo. Estábamos en la mitad de la Depresión así que los americanos no veían esto como una usurpación del poder.
Aparentemente, una de las mentiras más grandes fue la Seguridad Social. También fue la mayor redistribución de riqueza con programas que los socialistas nunca antes habían ofrecido. Se estableció el 1% de impuesto sobre los salarios y un 1% correspondiente a los empleadores, y esto debía ponerse en un fondo confiable en la Tesorería. Una acumulación iba a ocurrir. Se estableció que el incremento sería lentamente. Mas adelante, se describió como un programa de seguro que debía asegurarlo para su retiro. Hubieron otros programas que se crearon al conjunto con la Seguridad Social, desde el comienzo eran programas de redistribución: compensación por desempleo, ayuda por menores dependientes, cuidado del menor y de maternidad, niños discapacitados, niños abandonados, programas de salud pública. La Seguridad Social se tornó en un esquema piramidal. Las personas con seguro social pagaban a aquellos que habían estado allí hace mucho tiempo. ¿Acaso la gente no va a la cárcel por organizar esquemas piramidales?
Harry S. Truman se convirtió en presidente después de la muerte de FDR, pero no se proclamó que él fuera un progresista. Aunque no se identificaba como progresista, su plan de Pacto Justo incluyó seguridad de salud a nivel nacional para los americanos, legislación de nuevos “derechos civiles”, leyes de Practicas de Empleo Justas, legislación sobre la vivienda, legislación sobre subsidios a granjeros y expansión de los programas de bienestar…suena progresista para mi. Él institucionalizó los subsidios para reducir la renta a las familias de bajos ingresos. El salario mínimo se incrementó a 75 centavos la hora. Ellos también incrementaron los préstamos de bajo interés a los granjeros. El seguro de salud nacional fue denegado porque la gente se dio cuenta de que esto era un primer paso hacia la medicina socializada. Una cuenta llamada a pagar subsidios directamente a los granjeros en vez de aumentar el costo de los productos agrícolas cuando el ingreso de la granja era inferior de un nivel determinado. Ellos decían que esto sonaba mucho más socialista.
Cuando Eisenhower fue electo en 1956 se conocía poco sobre sus políticas. ¿Se liberaría del gobierno dadivoso? Él era el primer republicano desde el comienzo del Nuevo Pacto. Se describía a si mismo como “básicamente conservativo” y decía que “ en los últimos veinte años el creciente socialismo estaba notándose positivamente en los Estados Unidos.” Pero en 1954, era claro que el no iba a responsabilizarse del gobierno dadivoso. Eisenhower aceptó el estado Dadivoso como un hecho. Eisenhower comenzó a hablar de que tan fructíferos debíamos ser, pero él tuvo el déficit mas alto en tiempo pacifico de la historia: 12.4 billones. El se negó a estar en medio del camino republicano. ¿O es esto un DIABLO? De todos modos, él no podía regresarse al camino del socialismo.
En 1960, John F. Kennedy fue electo presidente, el hombre mas joven elegido para oficiar la Presidencia de los Estados Unidos de América. Él institucionalizó varios programas pero estas series decían que él tenía un congreso democrático hostil. Después de su asesinato Lyndon B. Johnson se convirtió en presidente.
Johnson promulgó la Gran Sociedad, la cual estaba muy cercana a presentarse abiertamente como socialista. Aparentemente, Barry Goldwater vio el significado de ello y presionó por la libertad en su campaña e hizo perder la calma por Johnson. Johnson no se molestaba por tener escrúpulos y usó una combinación de torcer el brazo, sentido del humor y trueques para pasar las cuentas que quería que fueran aprobadas por un congreso controlado por los demócratas. El comité del congreso ncional republicano fue clasificado como el congreso 3B: (por sus letras en ingles) intimidado, criticado y lavados de cerebro. ¿Suena familiar? Johnson probablemente hizo más por el movimiento socialista que cualquier otro de los presidentes modernos. La única cosa que detuvo su momento fue la guerra de Vietnam. Cosa que también acabó con su presidencia.
Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial América había llevado bienestar al exterior. Como está citado en este libro de historia: “…los Estados Unidos promovieron el bienestar y subsidiaron el socialismo en Europa.” El Programa de Recuperación Europeo permite negociaciones entre los países, con todas las protecciones del mercado mundial. Ellos también dependían de Estados Unidos.
Esto trajo nuestra historia a los tiempos modernos, así que yo me detengo aquí. Además, mi mente ya está confundida. Ahora estoy en mi generación, y apenas tengo idea de lo que pasó antes de mi nacimiento. El vencedor escribe la historia. Y la historia ha sido reescrita todo el tiempo. Afortunadamente, nosotros tenemos el poder de elegir nuestros gobernadores y periódicamente hemos interrumpido sus planes a lo largo de estos 100 años. Pero usted puede ver cómo la trayectoria ha vagado y serpenteado por nuestra historia. Nosotros estamos bien dentro de una trayectoria de un estado de niñera. Yo he recogido una mejor apreciación del presidente Hoover. Siempre he escuchado que él fue un hombre frio e insensible, incluso que él no hubiera ayudado a la gente durante la depresión. Pero esa no es la verdad completa, ¿o sí? Es cómo dice la Biblia: Dale a un hombre un pez y lo ayudarás un día. Ensénale como pescar y lo ayudarás para toda la vida. Si continuamos poniendo a la gente en un mundo de bienestar y los dejamos allí ellos habrán aprendido sobre el desamparo. Yo tengo un hijo minusválido. Cuando le enseñaba sobre autosuficiencia siendo él muy joven, me dijeron que no me detuviera cuando él actuara cómo si no supiera hacerlo. Cualquier niño actuará como si no supiera vestirse si él piensa que usted lo va a vestir. ¿Por qué esforzarse si no tiene para que? Si él puede levantar sus manos y usted le pondrá su camisa, ¿Por qué él se va a molestar en hacerlo por sí mismo? Esto es lo que se llama aprender a ser un desamparado. Si yo le muestro a usted los duros momentos por los que estoy pasando y usted viene a ayudarme, yo no tendré que hacer nada. Yo hice lo mismo con mi madre para deshacerme del pepino. Yo removí el pepino en vez de la maleza. Es la naturaleza humana.
Más temprano o más tarde usted tendrá que cortar la ayuda. No estoy en contra del bienestar. Tal vez debería haber un límite de tiempo. Eso haría que la gente hiciera algo para mejorar por si misma. Todos caemos en momentos difíciles y necesitamos de una mano. Pero hay una porción tremenda de programas estatales niñeros y hay personas allí afuera diciéndole a usted cómo jugar al gobierno y conseguir su porcentaje “justo”. ¿Y para aumentar las ayudas gubernamentales e incluir 150% de pobreza e incluir que el gobierno maneje el cuidado medico? Yo no pienso eso. Deberíamos recortar la intervención del gobierno. Necesitamos otro Herbert Hoover ahora.
Fuente: A Basic History of the United States, Volumenes 1-5, por Clarence B. Carson, derechos de autor American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, Julio 1994
Nota agregada en marzo… la reforma del cuidado de salud ha pasado, firmada por Obama, y él está usando el dinero de la gente americana. Hay derechos para los americanos que hacen un 400% de pobreza. Ellos están penalizando a la juventud haciendo que todos los préstamos estudiantiles vayan a través del gobierno. Que cántaro. Y se supone que las condiciones pre-existentes de los ninos hasta los 26 deben cubrirse inmediatamente, pero olvidaron ponerlo en la propuesta. El representante Stupak excavó en una lengua anti-abortista, basado en un orden ejecutivo, el cual no admite ser digno del papel en el que fue escrito. Obama ha hecho pactos, intimidando congresistas, doblando brazos, para conseguir que esta reforma pase cuando en el pasado él había admitido que si la reforma al cuidado medico pasaba con menos del 60% no podría gobernar una nación. Entonces ¿Qué es lo que pretende? Hay un 76% de los Estados Unidos en contra de la reforma pero él de todas maneras esta forzandonos a aceptarla sin escuchar nuestro clamor. El quiere una revolución, así podra declarar una ley marcial y suspender las elecciones y declararse así mismo como un dictador. Eduquese usted mismo. Hay radicales de los 60-70s quienes ya hubieran salido a las calles a quemar cosas como muestra de protesta. Ellos no se explican por qué nosotros no lo hemos hecho.
Yo digo que empecemos a usar camisas desteñidas y hacer mofa de ellos. Regresemos a la charla maravillosa, usemos nuestros cabellos largos y las colas de caballo y empecemos a usar señales de paz. Paz…maravillosa…extraña…
Lori Ann Smith
Luchando por la libertad hasta mi ultimo aliento.
Oren por la paz
Translated by Sandra Davila.
http://loriann12.blogspot.com
(PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO REPRINT FOR NON-PROFIT AS LONG AS MY NAME REMAINS WITH THIS PUBLICATION.)
Reprint Progresistas en la historia
I have committed to reposted this as well, every month. Please help me get this out to our friends who still think best in their native language.
(NOTE: This is a reprint of my Socialists in History, in Spanish.)
Progresistas en la historia
La educación es nuestra mejor defensa. Me he comprometido a publicar algo cada mes, junto con los nombres de los Congresistas progresistas de la historia. Esto es algo que no podemos olvidar. No lo olvidaremos mientras yo aun tenga aliento. Si los progresistas de la oficina quieren que América olvide, tendrán que borrar nuestras memorias, nuestros escritos, nuestros medios electrónicos. En tiempos pasados bastaba con quemar los libros. Obama: ¿Qué esta usted hacienda ahora?
Progresistas en la historia
Mi esposo tiene un excelente set de libros de historia, a nivel de colegio, sorprendente a la vista. De hecho, estos libros son los que usé para mi Carta Abierta al presidente Obama (La cual deberé publicar después). Me ha estado inquietando el concepto del plan de 100 años que los Progresistas tuvieron, y aunque nadie ha salido a decir que ellos tenían un plan de 100 años, de estos libro saqué la idea. Un par de veces se me ha pedido explicar esto, así que eso intento hacer ahora.
Al cambio de siglo, los liberales escogieron llamarse Progresistas porque ellos calcularon que la gente estaría con el progreso. En ese momento hicimos saltos enormes en el progreso. Nuevos inventos de esa época: el teléfono, la luz eléctrica, el automóvil, las calles para carros, los aeroplanos, las fotos con movimiento; el mercado de bienes se desarrollo rápidamente, los granjeros disfrutaron de una prosperidad sin precedentes y el oro se descubrió en 1896 en Alaska. A pesar del pánico de los bancos en 1907, había un marco de ambiente prospero. Teníamos una mentalidad de progreso, de prosperidad en América. Todos los progresistas tuvieron que hacer lo que los relacionaba con la reforma y el progreso. Usted tuvo que tener un gran gobierno para poder tener progreso en sus mentes.
Para esa época, ellos habían establecido el Darwinismo como un hecho. Los más aptos sobreviven. Los otros mueren. Hay una cita de John D. Rockefeller: “El crecimiento de un negocio grande es meramente la supervivencia de los mejores adaptados... Esto no es una tendencia maligna en los negocios. Es meramente el trabajo de la ley de la naturaleza y la ley de Dios”. Así que poniendo estos conceptos juntos, ellos establecieron como un hecho que aquellos en contra de ellos estaban en contra del progreso y que morirían por ser los débiles. Conformaron la elite, una forma más alta de sociedad, mas desarrollada. Ellos también insistían en que los Estados Unidos era una democracia o que debía serlo. Somos una Republica no una Democracia. Pero como se ve aquí, los progresistas eran la elite, no los conservadores. Ellos no eran el hombre común.
En 1911, ellos dirigieron su agenda al sistema educativo. Charles A. Ellwood dijo que las escuelas deberían ser usadas como “un instrumento de conciencia de la reconstrucción social”. Los progresistas quisieron rechazar el aprendizaje religioso y humano (se tomó este como Humanidades o Artes) y experimentar con lo que trabajaría. Ellos querían “socializar” a la juventud. Es allí cuando comenzó la educación centrada en el niño. Esto hizo que las escuelas se fueran camino abajo hasta llegar a lo que tenemos ahora, con el Departamento de Educación tomando el control sobre los maestros dentro del salón de clases.
Los progresistas incluso arrasaron con el movimiento Cristiano, según estos textos, a los que llamaron los detractores (gospellers) sociales. Fueron llamados los atacantes mas viciados del sistema económico americano, pidiendo una reforma de nuestro sistema fiscal. Así pues, temprano en los 1900s, los socialistas se habían infiltrado en las iglesias reclamando reformas y usando la palabra de Dios como su apoyo. Ellos son los que básicamente estuvieron en contra del mercado libre y comenzaron todo este movimiento en contra de Dios para hacerse ricos. Fue allí cuando el muckraking se volvió popular. Adivino que es esto lo que ellos han estado haciendo. Exponer artículos se volvió una practica popular porque la gente estaba hambrienta por conocer la verdad de lo que realmente estaba pasando. Ellos llamaron a David Graham Phillips el traidor del Senado... ¿Suena familiar?
Originalmente, los partidos democráticos eran denominados partidos privados y excluían a los negros. Incluso después de la 14ava Enmienda, a los negros solo se les permitía votar en las elecciones generales. Supongo que no querían que ellos votaran hasta que hubieran decidido por quien ellos podían votar. El sur se volvió sólidamente Democrático. Los progresistas eran aquellos que reclamaban por la segregación. Se volvieron hacia los votos de los negros. En los 1800s, no había segregación, había una separación natural, pero no una forzada segregación. Para la Primera Guerra Mundial, una segregación extensa se había establecido en los estados de la vieja Confederación y los estados vecinos. En 1930, la ordenanza de Birmingham prohibió que negros y blancos jugaran juntos domino o damas. Hay que anotar dos cosas: La segregación fue impuesta por los blancos. La superioridad blanca fue proclamada y la inferioridad negra fue asumida. Booker T. Washington, un prominente líder negro, le pidió a todos: “sufrir en silencio” y ejercitar “la paciencia, (forbearance and patience have the same meaning) y el autocontrol en medio de las condiciones que se vivían”. El quería que ellos mejoraran y compitieran en el mercado. ¡Qué hombre tan inteligente!, mucho más allá de su época. Pero tengo que admitir que yo no creo que hubiera podido hacerlo bajo esas condiciones. Yo creo que todo fue orquestado para escoger el chivo expiatorio para futuros planes. Y es despreciable escoger una raza completa para estos planes…
¿Sabía usted que en 1894 ellos intentaron institucionalizar un ingreso fiscal pero encontraron que era anticonstitucional? La constitución dice que los impuestos deben ser repartidos a los estados de acuerdo a su población, por consentimiento… y eso no es un ingreso fiscal, ¿Acaso sí? Los progresistas se salieron de esta enmendando la cuenta tarifaria. Esta fue nuestra primera redistribución de la abundancia, de los ricos hacia los subsidiados o improductivos en la sociedad. 1913 es también cuando nosotros ratificamos la elección directa de nuestros senadores. Originalmente, los senadores eran representantes de los estados, no de la gente. Se suponía ser un sistema de balance y equilibrio, así los estados tendrían algo de control sobre el congreso.
Los progresistas tuvieron el poder nacional desde 1901 hasta 1921, abarcando las presidencias de Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, y Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt se refirió a su programa como la Repartición Cuadrática y Wilson tuvo su Nueva Libertad. Ninguno profesó ser socialista, pero ambos fijaron el país en una trayectoria socialista. El mismo Rossevelt dijo: “El Nuevo Nacionalismo pone la necesidad nacional antes de la ventaja personal o seccional… Este nuevo Nacionalismo ve al poder ejecutivo como el administrador del bienestar público. Exige de la judicatura que se interese sobre todo en el bienestar humano mas que en la propiedad…” Wilson dijo de su Nueva Libertad: “Yo creo que ha llegado el tiempo cuando el gobierno de este país, tanto nacional como estatal, establezca el escenario… para que la justicia de los hombres actué en cada relación de la vida… Sin la interferencia vigilante, la interferencia resoluta, del gobierno no puede haber juego justo entre los individuos y las instituciones de gran alcance tales como confiables. La libertad es hoy algo más que venir a menos.
El programa de un gobierno de libertad debe, en estos días, ser meramente positivo, no negativo; En otras palabras, es trabajo del gobierno ser pro-activo (dinámico)
El libro de historia dice que en los 1920s, los intelectuales se sintieron alienados por América. Ellos escaparon a Europa.
La Gran Depresión comenzó con la caída del mercado de 1929. Herbert Hoover era el presidente y era considerado como un presidente frio e insensible. En realidad, él creía que el gobierno no debía jugar ningún papel para sacar a los americanos de los lugares bajos donde estaban, que eso le tocaba a las caridades y negocios privados. El decía que una vez que el gobierno se convirtiera en el salvador, ellos dependerían de alguna manera y para siempre de la ayuda del gobierno. ¿Suena familiar? La Depresión fue el final de los conservadores en el poder. Así que los conservadores solo tuvieron el poder de 1922-1932. En 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt fue elegido y los progresistas regresaron al poder. El acusó a la administración del momento de gastar mucho pero dijo que él gastaría dinero en los ciudadanos americanos para liberarlos de la hambruna durante la depresión. ¿Suena esto familiar? Culpar a la administración pasada y gastar, gastar, gastar, pero, tengo excusa para esto.
En ningún momento de la historia ninguna administración ha hecho tanto en sus primeros 100 días para “cuidar” de la gente americana, o demostró más autoridad sobre nuestra economía. A menos que usted esté contando la presente administración. Llegó un punto en el que Roosevelt abiertamente intimidó al congreso, diciéndoles que si ellos no actuaban, él tomaría el poder y actuaría por si mismo. Estábamos en la mitad de la Depresión así que los americanos no veían esto como una usurpación del poder.
Aparentemente, una de las mentiras más grandes fue la Seguridad Social. También fue la mayor redistribución de riqueza con programas que los socialistas nunca antes habían ofrecido. Se estableció el 1% de impuesto sobre los salarios y un 1% correspondiente a los empleadores, y esto debía ponerse en un fondo confiable en la Tesorería. Una acumulación iba a ocurrir. Se estableció que el incremento sería lentamente. Mas adelante, se describió como un programa de seguro que debía asegurarlo para su retiro. Hubieron otros programas que se crearon al conjunto con la Seguridad Social, desde el comienzo eran programas de redistribución: compensación por desempleo, ayuda por menores dependientes, cuidado del menor y de maternidad, niños discapacitados, niños abandonados, programas de salud pública. La Seguridad Social se tornó en un esquema piramidal. Las personas con seguro social pagaban a aquellos que habían estado allí hace mucho tiempo. ¿Acaso la gente no va a la cárcel por organizar esquemas piramidales?
Harry S. Truman se convirtió en presidente después de la muerte de FDR, pero no se proclamó que él fuera un progresista. Aunque no se identificaba como progresista, su plan de Pacto Justo incluyó seguridad de salud a nivel nacional para los americanos, legislación de nuevos “derechos civiles”, leyes de Practicas de Empleo Justas, legislación sobre la vivienda, legislación sobre subsidios a granjeros y expansión de los programas de bienestar…suena progresista para mi. Él institucionalizó los subsidios para reducir la renta a las familias de bajos ingresos. El salario mínimo se incrementó a 75 centavos la hora. Ellos también incrementaron los préstamos de bajo interés a los granjeros. El seguro de salud nacional fue denegado porque la gente se dio cuenta de que esto era un primer paso hacia la medicina socializada. Una cuenta llamada a pagar subsidios directamente a los granjeros en vez de aumentar el costo de los productos agrícolas cuando el ingreso de la granja era inferior de un nivel determinado. Ellos decían que esto sonaba mucho más socialista.
Cuando Eisenhower fue electo en 1956 se conocía poco sobre sus políticas. ¿Se liberaría del gobierno dadivoso? Él era el primer republicano desde el comienzo del Nuevo Pacto. Se describía a si mismo como “básicamente conservativo” y decía que “ en los últimos veinte años el creciente socialismo estaba notándose positivamente en los Estados Unidos.” Pero en 1954, era claro que el no iba a responsabilizarse del gobierno dadivoso. Eisenhower aceptó el estado Dadivoso como un hecho. Eisenhower comenzó a hablar de que tan fructíferos debíamos ser, pero él tuvo el déficit mas alto en tiempo pacifico de la historia: 12.4 billones. El se negó a estar en medio del camino republicano. ¿O es esto un DIABLO? De todos modos, él no podía regresarse al camino del socialismo.
En 1960, John F. Kennedy fue electo presidente, el hombre mas joven elegido para oficiar la Presidencia de los Estados Unidos de América. Él institucionalizó varios programas pero estas series decían que él tenía un congreso democrático hostil. Después de su asesinato Lyndon B. Johnson se convirtió en presidente.
Johnson promulgó la Gran Sociedad, la cual estaba muy cercana a presentarse abiertamente como socialista. Aparentemente, Barry Goldwater vio el significado de ello y presionó por la libertad en su campaña e hizo perder la calma por Johnson. Johnson no se molestaba por tener escrúpulos y usó una combinación de torcer el brazo, sentido del humor y trueques para pasar las cuentas que quería que fueran aprobadas por un congreso controlado por los demócratas. El comité del congreso ncional republicano fue clasificado como el congreso 3B: (por sus letras en ingles) intimidado, criticado y lavados de cerebro. ¿Suena familiar? Johnson probablemente hizo más por el movimiento socialista que cualquier otro de los presidentes modernos. La única cosa que detuvo su momento fue la guerra de Vietnam. Cosa que también acabó con su presidencia.
Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial América había llevado bienestar al exterior. Como está citado en este libro de historia: “…los Estados Unidos promovieron el bienestar y subsidiaron el socialismo en Europa.” El Programa de Recuperación Europeo permite negociaciones entre los países, con todas las protecciones del mercado mundial. Ellos también dependían de Estados Unidos.
Esto trajo nuestra historia a los tiempos modernos, así que yo me detengo aquí. Además, mi mente ya está confundida. Ahora estoy en mi generación, y apenas tengo idea de lo que pasó antes de mi nacimiento. El vencedor escribe la historia. Y la historia ha sido reescrita todo el tiempo. Afortunadamente, nosotros tenemos el poder de elegir nuestros gobernadores y periódicamente hemos interrumpido sus planes a lo largo de estos 100 años. Pero usted puede ver cómo la trayectoria ha vagado y serpenteado por nuestra historia. Nosotros estamos bien dentro de una trayectoria de un estado de niñera. Yo he recogido una mejor apreciación del presidente Hoover. Siempre he escuchado que él fue un hombre frio e insensible, incluso que él no hubiera ayudado a la gente durante la depresión. Pero esa no es la verdad completa, ¿o sí? Es cómo dice la Biblia: Dale a un hombre un pez y lo ayudarás un día. Ensénale como pescar y lo ayudarás para toda la vida. Si continuamos poniendo a la gente en un mundo de bienestar y los dejamos allí ellos habrán aprendido sobre el desamparo. Yo tengo un hijo minusválido. Cuando le enseñaba sobre autosuficiencia siendo él muy joven, me dijeron que no me detuviera cuando él actuara cómo si no supiera hacerlo. Cualquier niño actuará como si no supiera vestirse si él piensa que usted lo va a vestir. ¿Por qué esforzarse si no tiene para que? Si él puede levantar sus manos y usted le pondrá su camisa, ¿Por qué él se va a molestar en hacerlo por sí mismo? Esto es lo que se llama aprender a ser un desamparado. Si yo le muestro a usted los duros momentos por los que estoy pasando y usted viene a ayudarme, yo no tendré que hacer nada. Yo hice lo mismo con mi madre para deshacerme del pepino. Yo removí el pepino en vez de la maleza. Es la naturaleza humana.
Más temprano o más tarde usted tendrá que cortar la ayuda. No estoy en contra del bienestar. Tal vez debería haber un límite de tiempo. Eso haría que la gente hiciera algo para mejorar por si misma. Todos caemos en momentos difíciles y necesitamos de una mano. Pero hay una porción tremenda de programas estatales niñeros y hay personas allí afuera diciéndole a usted cómo jugar al gobierno y conseguir su porcentaje “justo”. ¿Y para aumentar las ayudas gubernamentales e incluir 150% de pobreza e incluir que el gobierno maneje el cuidado medico? Yo no pienso eso. Deberíamos recortar la intervención del gobierno. Necesitamos otro Herbert Hoover ahora.
Fuente: A Basic History of the United States, Volumenes 1-5, por Clarence B. Carson, derechos de autor American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, Julio 1994
Nota agregada en marzo… la reforma del cuidado de salud ha pasado, firmada por Obama, y él está usando el dinero de la gente americana. Hay derechos para los americanos que hacen un 400% de pobreza. Ellos están penalizando a la juventud haciendo que todos los préstamos estudiantiles vayan a través del gobierno. Que cántaro. Y se supone que las condiciones pre-existentes de los ninos hasta los 26 deben cubrirse inmediatamente, pero olvidaron ponerlo en la propuesta. El representante Stupak excavó en una lengua anti-abortista, basado en un orden ejecutivo, el cual no admite ser digno del papel en el que fue escrito. Obama ha hecho pactos, intimidando congresistas, doblando brazos, para conseguir que esta reforma pase cuando en el pasado él había admitido que si la reforma al cuidado medico pasaba con menos del 60% no podría gobernar una nación. Entonces ¿Qué es lo que pretende? Hay un 76% de los Estados Unidos en contra de la reforma pero él de todas maneras esta forzandonos a aceptarla sin escuchar nuestro clamor. El quiere una revolución, así podra declarar una ley marcial y suspender las elecciones y declararse así mismo como un dictador. Eduquese usted mismo. Hay radicales de los 60-70s quienes ya hubieran salido a las calles a quemar cosas como muestra de protesta. Ellos no se explican por qué nosotros no lo hemos hecho.
Yo digo que empecemos a usar camisas desteñidas y hacer mofa de ellos. Regresemos a la charla maravillosa, usemos nuestros cabellos largos y las colas de caballo y empecemos a usar señales de paz. Paz…maravillosa…extraña…
Lori Ann Smith
Luchando por la libertad hasta mi ultimo aliento.
Oren por la paz
Translated by Sandra Davila.
http://loriann12.blogspot.com
(PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO REPRINT FOR NON-PROFIT AS LONG AS MY NAME REMAINS WITH THIS PUBLICATION.)
December Repost of Progressives in History
December Repost of Progressives in History
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month, along with the names of all the progressive Congressmen. This is something we can not forget. We will not forget as long as I have breath in me. If the Progressives in office want America to forget, they will have to erase it from our minds, our print, our electronic media. In the old days, you could just burn the books. What are you going to do now, Obama?
August Note: We've now passed the Jobs bill, even though Americans didn't want it either. And hidden in the Jobs bill, are parts of Cap and Trade, waiting for the rest of it. Sooner and later, Cap and Trade, also known as Cap and Tax, will be passed against the will of the people. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable.
December Note: And now we've passed more legislation than I can remember that the American People don't want. And most was passed during the Lame Duck session. I've only been into politics for a short time, and all these terms are new to me. Why is it that Congressmen who have been voted out of office, get to remain in office for 2 months so they can damage the country? The new congressmen should be sworn in the day after the elections. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. I'm a veteran from 22 years ago. We had gays in the military then, and it wasn't really an issue. I had one woman tell me she would rather bend a straight woman than date another gay woman. Are we going to be dealing with out-right sexual assaults now? How can you file a complaint without being labeled a bigot? We are in a Constitutional Crisis and America needs to wake up!
Progressives in History
My husband has an excellent set of History books, college level, that are just astounding in their insight. As a matter of fact, they're the ones I used in my Open Letter To President Obama. (Which I may post at a later date.) I've been tossing around the concept of the 100 year plan that the Progressives had, and, though it doesn't come out and say they had a 100 year plan, these books are where I got that idea. I've been asked a couple times to explain that, so this is my attempt to do just that.
At the turn of the century, the liberals chose to call themselves Progressives because they figured the people would be for progress. We were making huge leaps in progress at that time. There were new inventions all the time: the telephone, electric lighting, the automobile, the streetcar, the airplane, motion pictures, marketing of goods was quickly being developed, farmers were enjoying unprecedented prosperity and gold had been discovered in 1896 in Alaska. Although there had been a banking panic in 1907, there was a framework of prosperity set. We had a mindset of progress, of prosperity in America. All the progressives had to do was link themselves to reform and progress. And they also linked big government to progress. You had to have big government in order to have progress, in their minds.
They had already established Darwinism as fact by this time. The fittest survive. The unfit die out. There is a quote from John D. Rockefeller: " The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest.....This is not an evil tendency of business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God." So, by linking these concepts together, they established as fact that those against them were against progress, and would die out because they were weak. They were becoming more elite, a higher form of society, evolving. They were also pushing that the United States was a democracy, or that it ought to be. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. But as you see here, the progressives were the elite, not the conservatives. They were not for the common man.
In 1911, they turned their agenda to the school system. Charles A. Ellwood said, that the schools should be used as "a conscious instrument of social reconstruction." The progressives wanted to throw out religious and humane learning, (I take that as the humanities, or arts) and experiment with what would work. They wanted to "socialize" the young. This is when child-centered education began. This started the schools down the road towards what we have now, with the Department of Education taking the control away from the teacher in the classroom.
The progressives had even crept into the Christian movement, according to these texts, who call them the social gospellers. It calls them the most vicious attackers of the American economic system, calling for reform of our tax system. So, in the early 1900's socialists had infiltrated the churches and were calling on reforms and using God's word to back it up. They are the ones who basically were against the free market and started this whole movement that it was against God to be rich.
This is when muckraking became popular. I guess that's what we're doing. Expose articles became popular because the people were hungry for the truth about what was really going on. They list David Graham Phillips' Treason of the Senate...sound familiar?
Originally, Democratic Parties in the south were deemed private parties and excluded blacks. Even with the 14th amendment, blacks were only allowed to vote in the general elections. I guess they didn't want them voting until they had decided who they could vote for. And the south had become solidly Democratic. The progressives were the ones who pushed for segregation. They turned on the black voters. In the late 1800's there was no segregation, there was natural separation, but no forced segregation. By World War I, widespread segregation had been established in the states of the old Confederacy and the neighboring states. By 1930, Birmingham ordinance prohibited Negroes and whites from playing dominoes or checkers together. Two things need to be noted. Segregation was imposed by whites. White superiority was proclaimed, and black inferiority was assumed. Booker T. Washington, a prominent Black leader of the period, told everyone: "to suffer in silence," and to exercise "patience, forbearance, and self-control in the midst of trying conditions." He wanted them to improve themselves and compete in the market. What a smart man, beyond his years. But I have to admit, I don't think I would be able to under those conditions. I believe it was all orchestrated to chose a scapegoat for their future plans. And it's despicable to choose a whole race for your plans...
Did you know that in 1894 they tried to institute an income tax but found it to be unconstitutional? The constitution says that taxes are to be given out by the states according to population, and by consent...and that's not an income tax, is it? The progressives got around that by amending the tariff bill. This was our first redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the subsidized or unproductive in society. In 1913 is also when we ratified direct election of our Senators. Originally, the Senators were to represent the States, not the people. It was supposed to be one of the checks and balances, so the States had some control over congress.
The progressives were in power nationally from 1901 until 1921, covering the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt referred to his program as the Square Deal, and Wilson had his New Freedom. Neither one professed to be socialists, but they set the country on a path towards socialism. Roosevelt said himself, "The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage. . . .This New Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than property..." Wilson said of his New Freedom, "I believe that the time has come when the government of this country, both state and national, have to set the stage...for the doing of justice to men in every relationship of life....Without the watchful interference, the resolute interference, of the government, there can be no fair play between individuals and such powerful institutions as the trusts. Freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of a government of freedom must in these days be positive, not negative merely." In other words, it's the government's job to be pro-active.
The history book says that in the 1920's, the intellectuals felt alienated from America. They fled to Europe.
The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929. Herbert Hoover was the President, and was considered a cold and calloused president. Actually, he believed that the government should play no roll in picking Americans up out of the low place they were in, that it should be the place of private charities and businesses. He said that once government became the saviour, they would forever be dependant on government aide of some kind. Sound familiar? The Depression was the end of the conservatives in power. So the conservatives only had power from 1922-1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and the progressives were back in office. He accused the present administration of too much spending, but said that he would spend money on American citizens in order to keep them from starving in the depression. Does that sound familiar? Blame the past administration and spend, spend, spend, but I have an excuse to do so.
At no point in history had any administration had so much been done in the first 100 days to "take care" of the American people, or assert so much authority over our economy. Unless you count the current administration. At one point Roosevelt openly threatened congress, saying if they didn't act, he would take the power and act himself. We were in the midst of a Depression, so the American people didn't see it as a usurpation of power.
One of the biggest lies, apparently, was Social Security. It was also the biggest redistribution of wealth programs the socialists ever came up with. It was set up as a 1% tax on wages and a 1% match by employers and was to be put in a trust fund in the Treasury. An accumulation was to occur. It was set up to slowly increase. Later it was described as an insurance program, I suppose for insuring when you retire. There were programs set up within Social Security that were redistribution programs from the beginning: unemployment compensation, aid to dependant children, maternal and child care, to crippled children, to neglected children, for public health programs. Social Security turned out to be a pyramid scheme. The people coming in to Social Security pay the ones who came in a long time ago. Don't people go to jail for setting up pyramid schemes?
Harry S. Truman became President upon FDR's death, but it doesn't claim he was a progressive. Although he didn't run as a progressive, his Fair Deal plan included a national health insurance for Americans, new "civil rights" legislation, Fair Employment Practices enactments, housing legislation, farming legislation with subsidies, and expansion of the welfare programs...sounds progressive to me. He instituted subsidies to reduce the rent for low income families. The minimum wage was increased to 75 cents an hour. They also increased low interest loans to farmers. The national health insurance was voted down because the people realized it was the first step to socialized medicine. One bill called for paying subsidies directly to farmers instead of driving up the cost of farm products when farm income fell below a certain level. They said it sounded too much like socialism.
When Eisenhower got elected in 1956 there was little known about his political views. Would he get rid of the welfare state? He was the first Republican since the beginning of the New Deal. He described himself as "basically conservative," and said that, "in the last twenty years creeping socialism has been striking in the United States." But, by 1954, it was clear that he wasn't going to take on the welfare state. Eisenhower accepted the Welfare state as fact. Eisenhower came in talking about how frugal we should be, but he had the highest deficit in peacetime history to that point: 12.4 billion. He turned out to be a middle of the road Republican. Or is it a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only)? Either way, he couldn't turn the tide back from the path to socialism.
In 1960, we elected John F. Kennedy, the youngest man elected to the office of President of the United States of America. He did institute several programs, but this series said he had a hostile Democratic congress. Upon his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson became President.
Johnson pushed the Great Society, which was real close to being openly socialist. Apparently, Barry Goldwater saw the significance of it, and he pushed for liberty in his campaign and lost the moderates to Johnson. Johnson wasn't bothered by scruples, and used a combination of arm twisting, cajolery and trades to get the bills he wanted passed in a Democrat controlled Congress. the National Republican Congressional Committee classified it as a 3B congress: bullied, badgered and brainwashed. Does that sound familiar? Johnson probably did more for the socialist movement than did any modern president. The only thing that stopped his momentum was the Viet Nam War. It also ended his presidency.
After World War II, America has even pushed Welfare abroad. As quoted from this history book, " ...the United States promoted welfarism and subsidized socialism in Europe." The European Recovery Program allows countries to trade with each other, yet shields them from the world market. They are also dependant on the United States.
This brings our history up to modern times, so I'll quit here. Besides, my mind is boggled. I am now in my generation, and had just no idea of what had gone on before my birth. The victor writes history. And history is being rewritten all the time. Luckily, we have the power to elect our officials, and we have periodically disrupted their plan through out these 100 years. But you can see how the path has wandered and meandered through our history. We are well on the path to a nanny state. I have gotten a much better appreciation for President Hoover. I had always heard that he was the cold and callous man, that he wouldn't even help people during the depression. But that isn't entirely true, is it? It's like the Bible says. Give a man a fish and help him for a day. Teach him to fish and help him for a life time. If we continue to put people on welfare, and leave them there, they will have learned helplessness. I have a handicapped son. When I was teaching him self-care when he was very young, I was told not to give up when he acted as though he didn't know how to do it. Any child will act as though he doesn't know how to get dressed if he thinks you're going to dress him. Why put out the effort if he doesn't have to? If he can stand there and hold up his arms and you'll put on his shirt, why should he struggle to do it himself? It's called learned helplessness. If I show how hard of a time I'm having, you'll come help me, and I won't have to do it. I did the same thing to get out of weeding the cucumbers with my mother. I weeded the cucumbers instead of the weeds. It's human nature.
Sooner or later you have to cut off the aide. I'm not against Welfare. Maybe there should be a time limit. That would encourage people to do something to better themselves. Everyone falls on hard times, and needs a hand up. But, there are an awful lot of nanny state programs, and there are people out there to tell you how to play the government and get your "fair" share. And to broaden government aide to include 150% of poverty and include government run health care? I don't think so. We should be shrinking government involvement. We need another Herbert Hoover about now.
Source: A Basic History of the United States, Volumes 1-5, by Clarence B. Carson, copyright American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, July 1994
Note added in March...the health care bill has passed, signed by Obama, and he's even bribing the American people. There are entitlements for Americans who make 400% of poverty. They are penalizing the young, by causing all student loans to go through the government. What a crock. And pre-existing conditions for children up to 26 were supposed to be covered immediately, but they forgot to put it in the bill. Rep Stupak caved on Pro-life language, based on an executive order, which he admits isn't worth the paper it's written on. Obama has been making deals, threatening congressmen, twisting arms, to get this bill passed, when in the past he has admitted that if you pass health care with less than 60%, you can't govern a nation. So, what does he intend to do? There is 76% of the United States against this bill, but he shoved it down our throats anyway. He wants a revolution so he can declare martial law and suspend the election and declare himself a dictator. Educate yourself. These are radicals from the 60-70's who would have already turned to burning the streets had the tables been turned. They can't figure out why we haven't.
I say we all start wearing tie dye shirts and make fun of them. Let's bring back the groovy talk, wear our hair long, in pony tails and start sporting peace signs. Peace out....groovy....freaky, deaky...man.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my dying breath.
Pray for peace
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month, along with the names of all the progressive Congressmen. This is something we can not forget. We will not forget as long as I have breath in me. If the Progressives in office want America to forget, they will have to erase it from our minds, our print, our electronic media. In the old days, you could just burn the books. What are you going to do now, Obama?
August Note: We've now passed the Jobs bill, even though Americans didn't want it either. And hidden in the Jobs bill, are parts of Cap and Trade, waiting for the rest of it. Sooner and later, Cap and Trade, also known as Cap and Tax, will be passed against the will of the people. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable.
December Note: And now we've passed more legislation than I can remember that the American People don't want. And most was passed during the Lame Duck session. I've only been into politics for a short time, and all these terms are new to me. Why is it that Congressmen who have been voted out of office, get to remain in office for 2 months so they can damage the country? The new congressmen should be sworn in the day after the elections. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. I'm a veteran from 22 years ago. We had gays in the military then, and it wasn't really an issue. I had one woman tell me she would rather bend a straight woman than date another gay woman. Are we going to be dealing with out-right sexual assaults now? How can you file a complaint without being labeled a bigot? We are in a Constitutional Crisis and America needs to wake up!
Progressives in History
My husband has an excellent set of History books, college level, that are just astounding in their insight. As a matter of fact, they're the ones I used in my Open Letter To President Obama. (Which I may post at a later date.) I've been tossing around the concept of the 100 year plan that the Progressives had, and, though it doesn't come out and say they had a 100 year plan, these books are where I got that idea. I've been asked a couple times to explain that, so this is my attempt to do just that.
At the turn of the century, the liberals chose to call themselves Progressives because they figured the people would be for progress. We were making huge leaps in progress at that time. There were new inventions all the time: the telephone, electric lighting, the automobile, the streetcar, the airplane, motion pictures, marketing of goods was quickly being developed, farmers were enjoying unprecedented prosperity and gold had been discovered in 1896 in Alaska. Although there had been a banking panic in 1907, there was a framework of prosperity set. We had a mindset of progress, of prosperity in America. All the progressives had to do was link themselves to reform and progress. And they also linked big government to progress. You had to have big government in order to have progress, in their minds.
They had already established Darwinism as fact by this time. The fittest survive. The unfit die out. There is a quote from John D. Rockefeller: " The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest.....This is not an evil tendency of business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God." So, by linking these concepts together, they established as fact that those against them were against progress, and would die out because they were weak. They were becoming more elite, a higher form of society, evolving. They were also pushing that the United States was a democracy, or that it ought to be. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. But as you see here, the progressives were the elite, not the conservatives. They were not for the common man.
In 1911, they turned their agenda to the school system. Charles A. Ellwood said, that the schools should be used as "a conscious instrument of social reconstruction." The progressives wanted to throw out religious and humane learning, (I take that as the humanities, or arts) and experiment with what would work. They wanted to "socialize" the young. This is when child-centered education began. This started the schools down the road towards what we have now, with the Department of Education taking the control away from the teacher in the classroom.
The progressives had even crept into the Christian movement, according to these texts, who call them the social gospellers. It calls them the most vicious attackers of the American economic system, calling for reform of our tax system. So, in the early 1900's socialists had infiltrated the churches and were calling on reforms and using God's word to back it up. They are the ones who basically were against the free market and started this whole movement that it was against God to be rich.
This is when muckraking became popular. I guess that's what we're doing. Expose articles became popular because the people were hungry for the truth about what was really going on. They list David Graham Phillips' Treason of the Senate...sound familiar?
Originally, Democratic Parties in the south were deemed private parties and excluded blacks. Even with the 14th amendment, blacks were only allowed to vote in the general elections. I guess they didn't want them voting until they had decided who they could vote for. And the south had become solidly Democratic. The progressives were the ones who pushed for segregation. They turned on the black voters. In the late 1800's there was no segregation, there was natural separation, but no forced segregation. By World War I, widespread segregation had been established in the states of the old Confederacy and the neighboring states. By 1930, Birmingham ordinance prohibited Negroes and whites from playing dominoes or checkers together. Two things need to be noted. Segregation was imposed by whites. White superiority was proclaimed, and black inferiority was assumed. Booker T. Washington, a prominent Black leader of the period, told everyone: "to suffer in silence," and to exercise "patience, forbearance, and self-control in the midst of trying conditions." He wanted them to improve themselves and compete in the market. What a smart man, beyond his years. But I have to admit, I don't think I would be able to under those conditions. I believe it was all orchestrated to chose a scapegoat for their future plans. And it's despicable to choose a whole race for your plans...
Did you know that in 1894 they tried to institute an income tax but found it to be unconstitutional? The constitution says that taxes are to be given out by the states according to population, and by consent...and that's not an income tax, is it? The progressives got around that by amending the tariff bill. This was our first redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the subsidized or unproductive in society. In 1913 is also when we ratified direct election of our Senators. Originally, the Senators were to represent the States, not the people. It was supposed to be one of the checks and balances, so the States had some control over congress.
The progressives were in power nationally from 1901 until 1921, covering the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt referred to his program as the Square Deal, and Wilson had his New Freedom. Neither one professed to be socialists, but they set the country on a path towards socialism. Roosevelt said himself, "The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage. . . .This New Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than property..." Wilson said of his New Freedom, "I believe that the time has come when the government of this country, both state and national, have to set the stage...for the doing of justice to men in every relationship of life....Without the watchful interference, the resolute interference, of the government, there can be no fair play between individuals and such powerful institutions as the trusts. Freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of a government of freedom must in these days be positive, not negative merely." In other words, it's the government's job to be pro-active.
The history book says that in the 1920's, the intellectuals felt alienated from America. They fled to Europe.
The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929. Herbert Hoover was the President, and was considered a cold and calloused president. Actually, he believed that the government should play no roll in picking Americans up out of the low place they were in, that it should be the place of private charities and businesses. He said that once government became the saviour, they would forever be dependant on government aide of some kind. Sound familiar? The Depression was the end of the conservatives in power. So the conservatives only had power from 1922-1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and the progressives were back in office. He accused the present administration of too much spending, but said that he would spend money on American citizens in order to keep them from starving in the depression. Does that sound familiar? Blame the past administration and spend, spend, spend, but I have an excuse to do so.
At no point in history had any administration had so much been done in the first 100 days to "take care" of the American people, or assert so much authority over our economy. Unless you count the current administration. At one point Roosevelt openly threatened congress, saying if they didn't act, he would take the power and act himself. We were in the midst of a Depression, so the American people didn't see it as a usurpation of power.
One of the biggest lies, apparently, was Social Security. It was also the biggest redistribution of wealth programs the socialists ever came up with. It was set up as a 1% tax on wages and a 1% match by employers and was to be put in a trust fund in the Treasury. An accumulation was to occur. It was set up to slowly increase. Later it was described as an insurance program, I suppose for insuring when you retire. There were programs set up within Social Security that were redistribution programs from the beginning: unemployment compensation, aid to dependant children, maternal and child care, to crippled children, to neglected children, for public health programs. Social Security turned out to be a pyramid scheme. The people coming in to Social Security pay the ones who came in a long time ago. Don't people go to jail for setting up pyramid schemes?
Harry S. Truman became President upon FDR's death, but it doesn't claim he was a progressive. Although he didn't run as a progressive, his Fair Deal plan included a national health insurance for Americans, new "civil rights" legislation, Fair Employment Practices enactments, housing legislation, farming legislation with subsidies, and expansion of the welfare programs...sounds progressive to me. He instituted subsidies to reduce the rent for low income families. The minimum wage was increased to 75 cents an hour. They also increased low interest loans to farmers. The national health insurance was voted down because the people realized it was the first step to socialized medicine. One bill called for paying subsidies directly to farmers instead of driving up the cost of farm products when farm income fell below a certain level. They said it sounded too much like socialism.
When Eisenhower got elected in 1956 there was little known about his political views. Would he get rid of the welfare state? He was the first Republican since the beginning of the New Deal. He described himself as "basically conservative," and said that, "in the last twenty years creeping socialism has been striking in the United States." But, by 1954, it was clear that he wasn't going to take on the welfare state. Eisenhower accepted the Welfare state as fact. Eisenhower came in talking about how frugal we should be, but he had the highest deficit in peacetime history to that point: 12.4 billion. He turned out to be a middle of the road Republican. Or is it a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only)? Either way, he couldn't turn the tide back from the path to socialism.
In 1960, we elected John F. Kennedy, the youngest man elected to the office of President of the United States of America. He did institute several programs, but this series said he had a hostile Democratic congress. Upon his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson became President.
Johnson pushed the Great Society, which was real close to being openly socialist. Apparently, Barry Goldwater saw the significance of it, and he pushed for liberty in his campaign and lost the moderates to Johnson. Johnson wasn't bothered by scruples, and used a combination of arm twisting, cajolery and trades to get the bills he wanted passed in a Democrat controlled Congress. the National Republican Congressional Committee classified it as a 3B congress: bullied, badgered and brainwashed. Does that sound familiar? Johnson probably did more for the socialist movement than did any modern president. The only thing that stopped his momentum was the Viet Nam War. It also ended his presidency.
After World War II, America has even pushed Welfare abroad. As quoted from this history book, " ...the United States promoted welfarism and subsidized socialism in Europe." The European Recovery Program allows countries to trade with each other, yet shields them from the world market. They are also dependant on the United States.
This brings our history up to modern times, so I'll quit here. Besides, my mind is boggled. I am now in my generation, and had just no idea of what had gone on before my birth. The victor writes history. And history is being rewritten all the time. Luckily, we have the power to elect our officials, and we have periodically disrupted their plan through out these 100 years. But you can see how the path has wandered and meandered through our history. We are well on the path to a nanny state. I have gotten a much better appreciation for President Hoover. I had always heard that he was the cold and callous man, that he wouldn't even help people during the depression. But that isn't entirely true, is it? It's like the Bible says. Give a man a fish and help him for a day. Teach him to fish and help him for a life time. If we continue to put people on welfare, and leave them there, they will have learned helplessness. I have a handicapped son. When I was teaching him self-care when he was very young, I was told not to give up when he acted as though he didn't know how to do it. Any child will act as though he doesn't know how to get dressed if he thinks you're going to dress him. Why put out the effort if he doesn't have to? If he can stand there and hold up his arms and you'll put on his shirt, why should he struggle to do it himself? It's called learned helplessness. If I show how hard of a time I'm having, you'll come help me, and I won't have to do it. I did the same thing to get out of weeding the cucumbers with my mother. I weeded the cucumbers instead of the weeds. It's human nature.
Sooner or later you have to cut off the aide. I'm not against Welfare. Maybe there should be a time limit. That would encourage people to do something to better themselves. Everyone falls on hard times, and needs a hand up. But, there are an awful lot of nanny state programs, and there are people out there to tell you how to play the government and get your "fair" share. And to broaden government aide to include 150% of poverty and include government run health care? I don't think so. We should be shrinking government involvement. We need another Herbert Hoover about now.
Source: A Basic History of the United States, Volumes 1-5, by Clarence B. Carson, copyright American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, July 1994
Note added in March...the health care bill has passed, signed by Obama, and he's even bribing the American people. There are entitlements for Americans who make 400% of poverty. They are penalizing the young, by causing all student loans to go through the government. What a crock. And pre-existing conditions for children up to 26 were supposed to be covered immediately, but they forgot to put it in the bill. Rep Stupak caved on Pro-life language, based on an executive order, which he admits isn't worth the paper it's written on. Obama has been making deals, threatening congressmen, twisting arms, to get this bill passed, when in the past he has admitted that if you pass health care with less than 60%, you can't govern a nation. So, what does he intend to do? There is 76% of the United States against this bill, but he shoved it down our throats anyway. He wants a revolution so he can declare martial law and suspend the election and declare himself a dictator. Educate yourself. These are radicals from the 60-70's who would have already turned to burning the streets had the tables been turned. They can't figure out why we haven't.
I say we all start wearing tie dye shirts and make fun of them. Let's bring back the groovy talk, wear our hair long, in pony tails and start sporting peace signs. Peace out....groovy....freaky, deaky...man.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my dying breath.
Pray for peace
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Do You Want the Government Bureaucracy Deciding about Your Food?
I've decided to go over S510 just to see what's in it. I know I've read the horror stories, but I want to see for myself what the bill says. You know, they couldn't get the bill passed on it's own merit, so they tacked it in another bill so it would pass. Doesn't that just sound like the government?
First off, most people skip the definitions, but I've learned that's where they get you. They can redefine something that you THOUGHT you knew the definition of. The first thing I run into is this: They're talking about inspecting records, and they want the right to inspect any food that could be contaminated. Sounds OK, right? But that's followed by: by inserting `, and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner,' after `relating to such article';
So, they can arbitrarily say, well, if x food item can be contaminated, than so can Y, so we're going to inspect them both.
And then we have this paragraph: `(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN- If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation of appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person, at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
WHAT? Since when does FOOD cause death? Do they know something we don't know? Or are they going to determine that mean raises your cholesterol, and therefore it causes and adverse affect on humans, and outlaw it?
And apparently when food facilities register (I guess that means for a license to sell food?) they will have to include a statement that they will let the government inspect their facility basically anytime they want to. Who is to say what's reasonable? The government? Or do the facility owners get to say, that's not convenient for me? We've seen how the government works...you can't say it's not convenient, but they can.
If you are deemed as having food that can cause serious injury or death, they can suspend your operations. And get this: EFFECT OF SUSPENSION- If the registration of a facility is suspended under this subsection, no person shall import or export food into the United States from such facility, offer to import or export food into the United States from such facility, or otherwise introduce food from such facility into interstate or intrastate commerce in the United States.
So, they are going to have total control over our food supply.
And they are redefining (just as I said they would) what a food facility is: RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The Secretary shall amend the definition of the term `retail food establishment' in section in 1.227(b)(11) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations to clarify that, in determining the primary function of an establishment or a retail food establishment under such section, the sale of food products directly to consumers by such establishment and the sale of food directly to consumers by such retail food establishment include--
So, if you have your own garden, make sure you GIVE away your vegetables or you could fall into this category. Don't grow vegetables to get a little extra money.
Here are their definitions of a retail food establishment:
A) the sale of such food products or food directly to consumers by such establishment at a roadside stand or farmers' market where such stand or market is located other than where the food was manufactured or processed;
(B) the sale and distribution of such food through a community supported agriculture program; and
(C) the sale and distribution of such food at any other such direct sales platform as determined by the Secretary.
See? It could be your little garden plot. If you have a roadside stand, it has to be on your property. Way out in the country? How much business will you get?
And then they even attack WHERE and WHAT CONDITIONS there are in place for the growing of food: include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, packing, and storage operations, science-based minimum standards related to soil amendments, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animals in the growing area, and water;
They get to determine our soil quality? Is everything going to go organic? Do you know who expensive organic is compared to regular. I would love to HAVE organic, but I can't afford most of it.
And then there's this little paragraph: IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the close of the comment period for the proposed rule making under subsection (a), the Secretary shall adopt a final regulation to provide for minimum science-based standards for those types of fruits and vegetables, including specific mixes or categories of fruits or vegetables, that are raw agricultural commodities, based on known safety risks, which may include a history of foodborne illness outbreaks.
Ever wonder why they had so many ecoli outbreaks with different foods? Perhaps they were setting up a track record of the foods they wanted to "regulate?" They now have a history of contamination for what? Spinach that I know of, lettuce, hamburgers.
And there will be variances allowed: REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES- A State or foreign country from which food is imported into the United States may in writing request a variance from the Secretary.
Note that it says State ... from which food is imported... That doesn't mean one of our states.
And how is this all being paid for? They will establish fees for reinspecting your facility. They don't say what those fees will be, but I'll bet you my last dollar that if they get to collect a fee for "reinspection," there will be a LOT of facilities determined to be a hazard, just so they can reinspect. And if you don't pay your fees? COLLECTION OF UNPAID FEES- In any case where the Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under this section within 30 days after it is due, such fee shall be treated as a claim of the United States Government subject to provisions of subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
Is this like owing to the IRS? And does this mean they are going to hire more IRS agents to do the collecting?
And apparently they are going to treat all food like a drug: (1) AUTHORITY FOR EXPORT CERTIFICATIONS FOR FOOD, INCLUDING ANIMAL FEED- Section 801(e)(4)(A) (21 U.S.C. 381(e)(4)(A)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking `a drug' and inserting `a food, drug';
(B) in clause (i) by striking `exported drug' and inserting `exported food, drug'; and
(C) in clause (ii) by striking `the drug' each place it appears and inserting `the food, drug'.
They are also going to be able to regulate more all the food that goes to our schools. Now while this may sound good on the surface, remember Cass Susstein. He doesn't want anyone to eat meat. Does this mean eventually, they will determine that meat is bad for our children, and just not serve it at school? I suggest home schooling. If they can determine that meat is bad, they can not allow sack lunches with meat in it either.
And I love this one:
`(1) IDENTIFICATION- The Secretary shall identify high-risk facilities and shall allocate resources to inspect facilities according to the known safety risks of the facilities, which shall be based on the following factors:
`(A) The known safety risks of the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility.
`(B) The compliance history of a facility, including with regard to food recalls, outbreaks of foodborne illness, and violations of food safety standards.
`(C) The rigor and effectiveness of the facility's hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls.
`(D) Whether the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility meets the criteria for priority under section 801(h)(1).
`(E) Whether the food or the facility that manufactured, processed, packed, or held such food has received a certification as described in section 801(q) or 806, as appropriate.
`(F) Any other criteria deemed necessary and appropriate by the Secretary for purposes of allocating inspection resources.
So, they can profile the food industry, but not the airplane industry?
Knowing that this administration is filled with Marxists/Communists ... Oops, was I supposed to use the term Democratic Socialist? Anyway, knowing this, I can foresee a time when they would list a majority of Domestic food facilities as unhealthy so we would have no choice but to import all our food. This would be a great way to redistribute wealth. And according to this document, foreign facilities can apply to not be under it's authority. Wow, kind of like the Climate change thing. Foreign countries may not be under the authority of any climate change bill that's world wide, because it would unduly affect their economy. Yea, right.
First off, most people skip the definitions, but I've learned that's where they get you. They can redefine something that you THOUGHT you knew the definition of. The first thing I run into is this: They're talking about inspecting records, and they want the right to inspect any food that could be contaminated. Sounds OK, right? But that's followed by: by inserting `, and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner,' after `relating to such article';
So, they can arbitrarily say, well, if x food item can be contaminated, than so can Y, so we're going to inspect them both.
And then we have this paragraph: `(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN- If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation of appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person, at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
WHAT? Since when does FOOD cause death? Do they know something we don't know? Or are they going to determine that mean raises your cholesterol, and therefore it causes and adverse affect on humans, and outlaw it?
And apparently when food facilities register (I guess that means for a license to sell food?) they will have to include a statement that they will let the government inspect their facility basically anytime they want to. Who is to say what's reasonable? The government? Or do the facility owners get to say, that's not convenient for me? We've seen how the government works...you can't say it's not convenient, but they can.
If you are deemed as having food that can cause serious injury or death, they can suspend your operations. And get this: EFFECT OF SUSPENSION- If the registration of a facility is suspended under this subsection, no person shall import or export food into the United States from such facility, offer to import or export food into the United States from such facility, or otherwise introduce food from such facility into interstate or intrastate commerce in the United States.
So, they are going to have total control over our food supply.
And they are redefining (just as I said they would) what a food facility is: RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The Secretary shall amend the definition of the term `retail food establishment' in section in 1.227(b)(11) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations to clarify that, in determining the primary function of an establishment or a retail food establishment under such section, the sale of food products directly to consumers by such establishment and the sale of food directly to consumers by such retail food establishment include--
So, if you have your own garden, make sure you GIVE away your vegetables or you could fall into this category. Don't grow vegetables to get a little extra money.
Here are their definitions of a retail food establishment:
A) the sale of such food products or food directly to consumers by such establishment at a roadside stand or farmers' market where such stand or market is located other than where the food was manufactured or processed;
(B) the sale and distribution of such food through a community supported agriculture program; and
(C) the sale and distribution of such food at any other such direct sales platform as determined by the Secretary.
See? It could be your little garden plot. If you have a roadside stand, it has to be on your property. Way out in the country? How much business will you get?
And then they even attack WHERE and WHAT CONDITIONS there are in place for the growing of food: include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, packing, and storage operations, science-based minimum standards related to soil amendments, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animals in the growing area, and water;
They get to determine our soil quality? Is everything going to go organic? Do you know who expensive organic is compared to regular. I would love to HAVE organic, but I can't afford most of it.
And then there's this little paragraph: IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the close of the comment period for the proposed rule making under subsection (a), the Secretary shall adopt a final regulation to provide for minimum science-based standards for those types of fruits and vegetables, including specific mixes or categories of fruits or vegetables, that are raw agricultural commodities, based on known safety risks, which may include a history of foodborne illness outbreaks.
Ever wonder why they had so many ecoli outbreaks with different foods? Perhaps they were setting up a track record of the foods they wanted to "regulate?" They now have a history of contamination for what? Spinach that I know of, lettuce, hamburgers.
And there will be variances allowed: REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES- A State or foreign country from which food is imported into the United States may in writing request a variance from the Secretary.
Note that it says State ... from which food is imported... That doesn't mean one of our states.
And how is this all being paid for? They will establish fees for reinspecting your facility. They don't say what those fees will be, but I'll bet you my last dollar that if they get to collect a fee for "reinspection," there will be a LOT of facilities determined to be a hazard, just so they can reinspect. And if you don't pay your fees? COLLECTION OF UNPAID FEES- In any case where the Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under this section within 30 days after it is due, such fee shall be treated as a claim of the United States Government subject to provisions of subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
Is this like owing to the IRS? And does this mean they are going to hire more IRS agents to do the collecting?
And apparently they are going to treat all food like a drug: (1) AUTHORITY FOR EXPORT CERTIFICATIONS FOR FOOD, INCLUDING ANIMAL FEED- Section 801(e)(4)(A) (21 U.S.C. 381(e)(4)(A)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking `a drug' and inserting `a food, drug';
(B) in clause (i) by striking `exported drug' and inserting `exported food, drug'; and
(C) in clause (ii) by striking `the drug' each place it appears and inserting `the food, drug'.
They are also going to be able to regulate more all the food that goes to our schools. Now while this may sound good on the surface, remember Cass Susstein. He doesn't want anyone to eat meat. Does this mean eventually, they will determine that meat is bad for our children, and just not serve it at school? I suggest home schooling. If they can determine that meat is bad, they can not allow sack lunches with meat in it either.
And I love this one:
`(1) IDENTIFICATION- The Secretary shall identify high-risk facilities and shall allocate resources to inspect facilities according to the known safety risks of the facilities, which shall be based on the following factors:
`(A) The known safety risks of the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility.
`(B) The compliance history of a facility, including with regard to food recalls, outbreaks of foodborne illness, and violations of food safety standards.
`(C) The rigor and effectiveness of the facility's hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls.
`(D) Whether the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility meets the criteria for priority under section 801(h)(1).
`(E) Whether the food or the facility that manufactured, processed, packed, or held such food has received a certification as described in section 801(q) or 806, as appropriate.
`(F) Any other criteria deemed necessary and appropriate by the Secretary for purposes of allocating inspection resources.
So, they can profile the food industry, but not the airplane industry?
Knowing that this administration is filled with Marxists/Communists ... Oops, was I supposed to use the term Democratic Socialist? Anyway, knowing this, I can foresee a time when they would list a majority of Domestic food facilities as unhealthy so we would have no choice but to import all our food. This would be a great way to redistribute wealth. And according to this document, foreign facilities can apply to not be under it's authority. Wow, kind of like the Climate change thing. Foreign countries may not be under the authority of any climate change bill that's world wide, because it would unduly affect their economy. Yea, right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)