Is our Constitutional Republic Being Replaced by a Guided Democracy?

I know I can't be the only one to see it. Our media, including Fox News, is doing everything in their power to "guide" us to the candidate they want elected. That would be Mitt Romney. I've see the ads. You know the ones, where Mitt Romney says he's pro-choice, he won't get in the way of a woman's decision about abortion. Then he turns around and suddenly he's pro-life. The footage where he says some guns need to be banned, then turns around and says he's pro 2nd Amendment. Then there's RomneyCare, that everyone knows was a blueprint for Obamacare. He can say it works on a state level, but is unconstitutional on a national level all he wants. He is Obama Light. He is NOT a conservative.

I haven't made up my mind yet who to vote for. They all have good and bad points. I haven't even eliminated Ron Paul. I know a lot of people that like Michelle Bachmann. Why has the media eliminated those 2? Why did Cain get driven out of the race?

If you do a little research on Obama, that's how he won his Illinois Senate seat. He eliminated the competition. Why has no major media outlet attacked Romney? FoxNews brought it up a little, but they let Romney wiggle out of it and let him get by with his excuses.

Have you ever researched the term Guided Democracy online? While I don't entirely trust Wikipedia, here's the definition from them of Guided Democracy:

"Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a term for a democratic government with increased autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that, while free and fair, are used by the government to continue their same policies and goals. Or, in other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While following basic democratic principles there can be minor deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques." [Reference numbers removed.]

And for those of you who are a little fuzzy on the definition of autocracy:

"An autocracy is a form of government in which one person is the supreme power within the state. It is derived from the Greek αὐτοκρατία: αὐτός ("self") and κρατείν ("rule"), and may be translated as "one who rules by himself". It is distinct from oligarchy ("rule by the few") and democracy ("rule by the people"). Like "despot", "tyrant", "strongman" and "dictator", "autocrat" is a loaded word with a negative value judgment." [Reference number removed.]

This is the form of government that Indonesia has, a guided democracy. Basically put, you are free to vote, but we'll decide on who you vote for. This is controlled in our country by eliminating the conservatives, whether Democrat (yes, I believe there are a few of those left) or Republican. It is also the premise behind President Obama wanting more power, and trying to eliminate our checks and balances.


Herman Cain scared the bejesus out of the establishment politicians. Rick Perry does, too. They are both unconventional, swear they'll change things, and that's what scares the establishment. Just like the insider trading not being called insider trading when Congress does it. I read an article on The Blaze that said the two major members of congress that DON'T do insider trading are Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul. I have to admit that I personally didn't care much for Ron Paul, until I heard that. I know it takes courage to not go along with the crowd. I've been a teenager that didn't go along with the crowd, but it wasn't easy. We have a congress full of grown men acting like teenagers affected by peer pressure. "There's no law against it, and besides, everyone is doing it." I have to say the same thing my mom told me: If everyone was jumping off the Mississippi bridge, would you do it?" And yes, I've used that analogy before and someone asked me which bridge on the Mississippi. I grew up in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. We only had one bridge across the Mississippi. We didn't call it the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge. We called it the Mississippi River Bridge.

But, it's early and I haven't had a full cup of coffee yet, so I digress. Just because CONGRESS hasn't made a law saying it's illegal for CONGRESS to trade on information they are the only ones in possession of, doesn't make it morally right. Of course there's no law against it. Congress is the one who makes the laws. If they made it illegal, as it is for the rest of us peons, how would they come into Congress with a modest amount of money and leave millionaires or billionaires?

The establishment doesn't WANT anything to change. They want the same policies in effect. That's why they're pushing Romney. Romney has a record of saying what he thinks the public wants to hear. He made the decision to be a little more liberal as Governor of a liberal state. Now he's running for President, and sees the reaction of the country to liberals, so he's hiding behind conservative rhetoric.

I have two theories. 1. The establishment wants to run someone who won't change things, or at least not by much, so they're guiding us to who they think that will be. 2. They truly don't believe any of the candidates have a chance to win against Obama, and know he can only legally serve one more term, so they want to run someone they don't really care gets tarnished by the run. They'll put their chips behind a true conservative in 2016.

I don't really believe the second one, as much as the first one. I would like to see a list of the Tea Party candidates (those supported by the Tea Party in 2010) and what their finances looked like before they got into Congress, as opposed to now. How many of them have been corrupted by the power they attained? Why hasn't anything ever changed? Have you seen President Obama's approval rating? I believe it's at something like 39%? I know it was lower than President Carter's at the same time in his term. With approval ratings like that, how could he possibly get re-elected? Hasn't just about everyone been saying, "Anyone but Obama?" So why is the media concentrating on a moderate so that, in their words, he has a chance to beat Obama? Why does the media, including Fox, say that we need someone who is capable of beating Obama? I've heard of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I've also heard of Hitler's tactics of tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. The media is going out of the way to tell us that only a moderate can beat Obama. Is that why over 50% (I think it was something like 60%) of the country identifies themselves as agreeing with Tea Party values? Even Democrats are moving more conservative.


I don't have a solution on how to change our path away from becoming a Guided Democracy except through education. If you like this blog and agree with it, please share it with as many as you can. Just keep my name with it.

Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my last breath

November 5th

I've been wondering about the fact that people all across this nation attach some significance to the 5th of November. The far left have chosen that date to try and collapse our banking institutions. It's only 8:20 AM where I am, and banks don't open until around 9:00, so I don't know if they will succeed or not.

So I did an Internet search for significant events that happened on November 5th to try and see if there are any patterns. This is what I found:

Act of November 5th: The Act of 5th November of 1916 was a declaration of Emperors Wilhelm II of Germany and Franz Joseph of Austria. This act promised the creation of the Kingdom of Poland, envisioned by its authors as a puppet state allied to and controlled by the Central Powers. The origin of that document was the dire need to draft new recruits from German-occupied Poland for the war with Russia.

(So, basically this date was significant for fascists who needed more conscripts to fight a war against the evil capitalists.)

The Observance of 5th November Act 1605: The Observance of 5th November Act 1605 (3 Ja. I, c. 1)[1] also known as the "Thanksgiving Act" was an Act of the Parliament of England passed in 1606 in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot.

The Bill was drafted and introduced on 23 January 1605/06 by Edward Montagu. It called for a public, annual thanksgiving for the failure of the Plot.[2][3]

Forasmuch as almighty God hath in all ages showed his power and mercy in the miraculous and gracious deliverance of his church, and in the protection of religious kings and states, and that no nation of the earth hath been blessed with greater benefit than this kingdom now enjoyeth, having the same true and free profession of the gospel under our most gracious sovereign lord King James, the most great learned and religious king that ever reigned therein, enriched with a most helpful and plentiful progeny proceeding out of his royal loins promising continuance of this happiness and profession to all posterity: the which many malignant and devilish papists, Jesuits, and seminary priests much envying and fearing, conspired most horribly, when the king's most excellent majesty, the queen, the prince, and the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, should have been assembled in the upper house of Parliament upon the fifth day of November in the year of our lord 1605 suddenly to have blown up the said house with gunpowder, an invention so inhuman, barbarous and cruel, as the like was never before heard of.[4]

(So, this would be important to people who want church and state to be united. I suppose that would include atheists, if you force people/government to believe in no God, or remove all references of God. It would also include Islam, which is a political/religious union.)

(See also: Gunpowder Plot: A conspiracy led by Robert Catesby to blow up the English Houses of Parliament is thwarted when Sir Thomas Knyvet, a justice of the peace, finds Guy Fawkes in a cellar below the House of Lords. - another anti-religion element.)

In the mid-1700s, the 5th of November was one of Boston’s most popular holidays. On that day, apprentices and young men paraded through town with giant effigies of the Devil, the Pope, and current political scapegoats, demanding coins from householders and passersby.

At nightfall, Boston’s North End and South End gangs met in the middle of town and brawled. The winners hauled away the other side’s paraphernalia and burned all the effigies in a festive bonfire. In 1764 the event became so violent that a young boy was killed, his head crushed by a wagon wheel.

In the decade that followed, the 5th of November processions became closely linked to the town’s protests against Parliamentary taxes. That political conflict led to the American Revolution. Ironically, the Revolutionary War ended up doing away with the 5th of November holiday in America.

(So, another one that demands tribute. I hope this movement in America doesn't take it to the streets, going house to house, demanding money. This sounds so much like the left. I'm going to protest taxes by making you pay me taxes.)

Apparently someone has been trying to make the 5th of November about shutting down banks since at least 2006 (see this site: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/5th_of_November). I suppose it would be important to people who celebrate murder. From my understanding, they tried to blow up Parliament. I wonder if they'll take this to the next step and try to blow up Congress? It is, after all, the fault of Congress not the Banks. If Congress had left well enough alone, the banks that needed "bailing out" would have lost their shirts, been bought by someone else and life would have gone on.

I just wonder if these people have ever stopped to think about banks and credit unions? How do they think the banks keep their lights on and pay their bills? They don't hold every one's money in a safe location for free. They take that money and invest it in different ventures, hoping to make more off of it than they give in interest to their customers or for their services. They have to make enough money to pay their utilities, rent, and employees. If everyone decides to take their money out of the bank, it's not there. It's in investments. They keep a small amount in case a few people close out their accounts, but why do you think they give you a check? It gives them time to get the money.

This whole "Bank Transfer Day" is just another way to destroy our nation. Doesn't anyone remember the Great Depression? I don't normally like Wikipedia but here's a really good explanation of a run on a bank: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bank_run

I guess only time will tell if they will do any damage to our financial system.

Congress, do you really want to get my attention?

I guess that could go for the Presidential candidates as well...do you really want to get my attention? I want to know why no one is talking about lowering the salaries for members of Congress?

I looked up some statistics. According to Ask.com:

______________________

•From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

(FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security, and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Two of the three parts of FERS (Social Security and the TSP) can go with you to your next job if you leave the Federal Government before retirement. The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life.

The TSP part of FERS is an account that your agency automatically sets up for you. Each pay period your agency deposits into your account amount equal to 1% of the basic pay you earn for the pay period. You can also make your own contributions to your TSP account and your agency will also make a matching contribution. These contributions are tax-deferred. The Thrift Savings Plan is administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.)

(The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) is a defined benefit, contributory retirement system. Employees share in the expense of the annuities to which they become entitled. CSRS covered employees contribute 7, 7 1/2 or 8 percent of pay to CSRS and, while they generally pay no Social Security retirement, survivor and disability (OASDI) tax, they must pay the Medicare tax (currently 1.45 percent of pay). The employing agency matches the employee's CSRS contributions.

CSRS employees may increase their earned annuity by contributing up to 10 percent of the basic pay for their creditable service to a voluntary contribution account. Employees may also contribute a portion of pay to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). There is no Government contribution, but the employee contributions are tax-deferred. For more information about TSP, see the TSP website.)

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressman's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

______________________

I have to admit some of that surprised me, but it's still more than the average (I thought it was more retirement.)

In a nut shell, of those Congressmen already retired, the average retirement is $48,462.

It also says that they're not supposed to get more than 80% of their highest pay. Let's take the current crop of Congressmen. They START at $174,000 right now. Just 80% of that is $139,200 for retirement.

My husband is retired Navy, getting a pension of about $1380 a month (I'm not real sure because we have a life insurance policy taken out before we see it.) So let's look up what our Current service members are getting:

I'm not sure how to do tables yet (into a blog), but I'll give it my best shot:

E-1 <2 yrs experience ($17,611)
E-2 <2 yrs experience through 6 yrs experience ($19,739)
E-3 <2 yrs experience ($20,758) 4 through 6 years experience ($23,400)
E-4 <2 yrs experience ($22,993) 4 yrs experience ($26,770) 6 yrs experience ($27,911)
E-5 <2yrs experience ($25,081) 4 yrs experience ($29,380) 6 yrs experience ($31,442)
E-6 <2 yrs experience ($27,374) 4 yrs experience ($32,742) 6 yrs experience ($34,088)
O-1 <2 yrs experience ($33,408) 4 through 6 yrs yrs experience ($42,030)
O-2 <2 yrs experience ($38,488) 4 yrs experience ($52,189) 6 yrs experience ($53,262)
O-3 <2 yrs experience ($44,543) 4 yrs experience ($59,422) 6 yrs experience ($62,266)

As far as other compensations:

FOOD ALLOWANCE
The Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) is used to pay for food for Enlisted Soldiers and Officers authorized to eat off base. Most Soldiers who qualify for BAS receive more than $200 per month.

HOUSING ALLOWANCE
The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) offsets the cost of housing when Soldiers live off base. BAH rates are based on location, rank and family status. BAH is the second-largest piece of compensation for most Soldiers.

CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
Enlisted Soldiers receive an annual allowance to replace uniforms and uniform decorations. For jobs that require civilian clothes, the military provides a civilian clothing allowance.

COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE
Soldiers assigned to high-cost locations in the continental U.S. and overseas are paid a Cost of Living Allowance. This allowance offsets the higher costs of food, transportation, clothing and other non-housing items. Higher costs of housing are covered separately by the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).

MOVING & RELOCATION ALLOWANCE
The military pays for the transportation of household goods during a permanent change-of-station move. In addition, a Temporary Lodging Allowance covers the cost of temporary housing at the beginning and end of a move. To further offset moving costs, a Dislocation Allowance is also granted for permanent change-of-station moves.

FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE
Soldiers assigned or deployed to locations where the military will not move families receive a Family Separation Allowance of $250 per month to cover expenses incurred during a Soldier's separation from their family. Soldiers are also entitled to the allowance if their families are unable to accompany them overseas due to medical reasons.

___________________

The military also gets 30 days a year of paid vacation, which rolls over a little. I think you can keep 60 days on the books, 120 if you're deployed.

As far as retirement for military, I found this:

Open to those who entered service on or after Sept. 8, 1980 but before Aug. 1, 1986. The retired pay rate is determined by the average pay rate during the three years when an individual’s pay was highest during his or her military career. That average is multiplied by 2.5 percent for each year in uniform to determine retirement pay. Thus, for 20 years of service, the High-3 formula offers retirement pay equal to 50 percent of average basic pay over the member’s three highest earning years in uniform; 75 percent of average basic pay over the three highest earning years for 30 years of service, and 100 percent of average basic pay over the three highest earning years for 40 years of service.

Those who entered military service after Aug. 1, 1986, can choose to receive retirement pay under the High-3 system or can choose the CSB/Redux option... For example, a service member under Redux with 20 years of service would multiply 20 by 2.5, then subtract ten (ten years short of 30 years of service), which yields 40. Thus, retired pay for a Redux member with 20 years of service would be 40 percent of average basic pay over their three highest earning years in uniform. Similarly, Redux members with 25 years of service would multiply 25 by 2.5, then subtract five (five years short of 30 years of service); their retired pay would be 57.5 percent of their average basic pay over their three highest earning years. Redux members with 30 years of service would simply multiply 30 by 2.5, which yields 75 percent of average basic pay over the three highest earning years in uniform. After 30 years of service, however, the formula for Redux members changes — they get a straight 2.5 percentage points for each year of service beyond 30. As such, retired pay for Redux members with 40 years of service would be 100 percent of their average basic pay over their three highest earning years in uniform.

My husband was in from 1981-2001. He gets about $16,680 a year from his retirement, which means he has to have another job, it's not really retirement. We live on it.

So, to sum it up: After 6 years, Congress supposedly only gets 80% of their highest salary. Let's assume it never goes higher than now, that's $139,200. An O-3 with 40 years in would get $62,266.

So if we lowered the pay of Congressmen by 10%, it would lower it to $156,600, which would mean a retirement the same as it is now, because they go by the highest. I'm suggesting they use the last 3 years in office....which would mean $125,280. that would still be double what the O-3 got. So they should continue to lower it until they match.

If we add in the average reimbursements, you can add about $14,000 to the base pay, so we'll call it $58,543 for an O-3 just starting. I think House members should have time in rank requirements, just like our military, and start out with the salary of an E-6 ($41,374) and let it go up every time they get re-elected. I'll give Senators a starting salary of O-1 ($47,408).

Occupy Wall Street Supporters

I've seen a lot of support for Wall Street coming from celebrities. I have to wonder, why? I thought Wall Street protesters were protesting the rich? Why would celebrities support someone who is calling for THEM to pay more taxes? If they want to send more than the government taxes them, they are free to send in more money.

I got a list from Celebrity Net Worth that lists the top 10 richest celebrities that are supporting OWS. (Emphasis added by blogger.)

#1 Yoko Ono Net Worth - $500 million.

Ono stated “I love ‘Occupy Wall Street’! John is sending his smile to ‘Occupy Wall Street’. I am sending my love to ‘Occupy Wall Street’. We are all working together. ”

#2 Russell Simmons Net Worth - $325 million

Keep in mind that on top of being a hip-hop mogul Simmons is the founder of a high fee credit card company called UniRush Financial Services.

#3 Roseanne Barr Net Worth - $80 million

Roseanne thinks anyone with over $100 million should be beheaded. Interesting that her net worth is $80 million. I guess she doesn't make “the cut”.

#4 Deepak Chopra Net Worth - $80 million

Chopra said #OWS is turning anger into awareness. The fortune he has made off his fluff filled books has just turned me to anger.

#5 Kanye West Net Worth - $70 million

#6 Alec Baldwin Net Worth - $65 million

#7 Susan Sarandon Net Worth - $50 million

#8 Michael Moore Net Worth - $50 million

#9 Tim Robbins Net Worth - $50 million

#10 Nancy Pelosi Net Worth - $35.5 million

These are the people that will be taxed more, do they realize that? These are the people being protested. From this same site, are the profiles of these celebrities:

Yoko Ono: Yoko Ono was born in Tokyo, Japan and has an estimated net worth of $500 million dollars. Yoko Ono, a performance artist and activist, is most widely known as the widow of John Lennon. She is also an accomplished musician and filmmaker and many credit her with bringing New Wave music to the forefront.

Russell Simmons: Russell Wendell Simmons was born on October 10, 1957 and is a very successful American entrepreneur, the co-founder (with Rick Rubin) of the pioneering hip-hop record label, Def Jam. His personal net worth is reputed to be $500 million. Simmons is one of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in the world of hip-hop and is a man with varied interests. In addition to his music empire, Russell Simmons also is owner and operator of three clothing lines that he founded. They are Phat Farm …Argyleculture … and American Classics. Simmons is also well-known for his strict adherence to a vegan lifestyle. As a strict and orthodox vegetarian, he will not eat meat and is opposed to the slaughter of animals for food. In the last couple of years, Russell Simmons has shifted his focus from records to political commentary and other literary pursuits.. He is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post and is also editor-in-chief of GlobalGrind.com, a website that reviews the world of hip-hop.

Roseanne Barr: Roseanne Barr was born in Utah and has an estimated net worth of $80 million dollars. A stand-up comedian, actress, writer, producer, and director, Roseanne Barr began her career in stand-up comedy, and became a household name in the late 80’s when she began appearing on her own show called, “Roseanne”. After “Roseanne’s” nine seasons, she hosted her own talk show, did voice-over work, wrote several books, and is currently preparing a reality series about her life.

Deepak Chopra: Deepak Chopra was born in India and has an estimated net worth of $80 million dollars. A former endocrinologist who shifted his focus to alternative medicine, Deepak Chopra is widely recognized for his lectures and books about Ayurveda and the mind-body connection. He has written 57 books and serves on multiple alternative medicine panels and boards around the world.

Kanye West: With an estimated worth of $70 million dollars, Kanye West is a notable produce, rapper and actor. West was born in Atlanta but raised by his mother first in Chicago and then Oak Lawn Illinois. He dropped out of college to pursue his career in the music industry, starting out initially as a producer for Roc-A-Fella records, but finally persuaded label head Jay-Z to sign him on as a rapper.

Where does Kanye West live?

West spent four years honing and perfecting what would become his debut album, The College Dropout, which came in at number two on the Billboard 200 and is still Kanye West’s best-selling album in the U.S.A. to date. Subsequent albums, Late Registration, Graduation and 808s & Heartbreak were also chart-toppers that received critical as well as commercial success. His production credits include an impressive role call of talent including: Jay-Z, Beyoncé, John Legend, Alicia Keys and Janet Jackson. West is also a seasoned businessman with a chain of Fatburger restaurants designated for the Chicago area, Air Yeezy, a line of athletic shoes for Nike, and another shoe line with Louis Vuitton. His philanthropy ventures include his own Kayne West Foundation, which benefits education for African American and Latino children, in addition to contributing time, talent and money to Hurricane Katrina relief, World Water Day, and Live Earth, among other organizations. To date, Kanye West has won forty-six awards, among them fourteen Grammys, seven BET awards, and two American Music Awards.

Alec Baldwin: Actor Alec Baldwin, oldest of the Baldwin brothers, has a net worth of $65 million. Born and raised in New York, Baldwin studied acting at the Less Strasberg Theater Institute. His stage credits include Loot, Serious Money, Macbeth, Twentieth Century, Entertaining Mr. Sloane, South Pacific, and A Streetcar named Desire, which garnered Baldwin a Tony Award nomination. Baldwin made his television debut on The Doctors, followed by a lead role on the primetime drama Knots Landing. Baldwin has appeared on many television shows, including guest spots on Will & Grace, Friends, Las Vegas, Nip/Tuck and voice work for Clerks, The Simpsons and Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. Baldwin has hosted Saturday Night Live fourteen times and currently stars on the NBC sitcom 30 Rock, for which Baldwin has earned ten awards for, among them two Emmy Awards and two Golden Globe Awards. Baldwin made his film debut in 1987 with Forever, Lulu followed by She’s Having a Baby, Beetlejuice, Working Girl and Married to the Mob.

Alec Baldwin Salary
What is Alec Baldwin’s salary on 30 Rock? $300,000 per episode

Baldwin broke into dramatic leading man status with his role in The Hunt for Red October, which grossed over $200 million worldwide. Baldwin received critical acclaim, accolades and award nominations, including a nod from the Academy Awards, for his performance in The Cooler. Other noteworthy film credits include The Departed, which grossed $289.8 million worldwide, Academy Award winning film The Aviator and the 2009 romantic comedy It’s Complicated, which grossed over $200 million worldwide.

Susan Sarandon: Susan Abigail Tomalin AKA Susan Sarandon is an American actress; she has a net worth of $50 million. Susan Sarandon has built her net worth from films and television since 1969, She has appeared in hits like Dead Man Walking, Thelma & Louise, and Stepmom. She was born in New York City, New York; she retained Sarandon as her stage name, after her divorce.

Michael Moore: Michael Moore is a controversial documentary filmmaker with a net worth of $50 million. Moore’s biggest three movies; Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 911 and Capitalism A Love Story have earned over $300 million at the box office.

Fahrenheit 911 raked in $230 million in theaters and another $3 million in DVD sales. After the theaters take their traditional 50% cut, that leaves roughly $130 million. Take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and Moore is conservatively left with $80 million. Moore was able to secure a deal from Miramax which guaranteed him 27% of his film’s net revenues, or roughly $21.6 million. Michael also was entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which are estimated to be $17 million.

Moore is the author of several best selling books and received a $1 million advance for “Dude Where’s My Country” plus a generous percentage of the book sales.

Moore financed his first documentary Roger and Me by holding neighborhood bingo nights around his hometown of Flint Michigan. He eventually sold the documentary to Warner Brothers for $3 million.

Tim Robbins: Tim Robbins was born in California and has an estimated net worth of $45 million dollars. An actor, director, writer, and musician, Tim Robbins is also known for his work as an activist. He is most widely recognized for his roles in such films as “Bull Durham”, “The Shawshank Redemption”, “The Player”, and “Mystic River”, for which he won an Oscar.

Nancy Pelosi: Nancy Pelosi is an American politician, with the net worth of $35.5 million. Nancy Pelosi earned her net worth as a U.S. Representative from California’s 8th District and the current House Minority Leader. She was elected to the position of Speaker of the House in 2007, a post she held until 2011. This position made her the highest-ranking female politician in US history. Pelosi was born in Baltimore, Maryland on March 6th, 1940. From 2002 to 2003, she served as the House Minority Whip, and was House Minority Leader from 2003 to 2007. Pelosi is a member of the Democratic Party. She was elected as the Democratic Leader, by House Democrats, on November 17, 2010, making her the Minority Leader in the Republican-controlled House for the 112th Congress.

How much does a Senator make?>

Pelosi is of Italian-American descent. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., was a Democratic U.S. Congressman from Maryland, and a Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi’s brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III., also a Democrat, was mayor of Baltimore from 1967 to 1971. He declined to run for a second term. She graduated from Trinity College in Washington DC, with a B.A. in political science. She married American businessman Paul Pelosi, who was the owner of the Sacramento Mountain Lions of the United Football League, in 1963. They have five children and eight grandchildren. The Pelosi’s currently reside in the Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. Nancy is very active in the Italian-American community, serving as a board member of the National Organization of Italian American Woman, as well as, serving for 13 years as a board member of the National Italian American Foundation (NIAF). The NIAF gave her a Special Achievement Award for Public Advocacy in 2007 and she continues to be involved in the foundation today. In addition to her political interests, Nancy and her husband also owned a large portfolio of San Francisco Bay Area real estate, as well as, a vineyard in St. Helena, California, which is valued between $5 million and $25 million.

So, what are the commonalities of these celebrities? They all used the capitalist system to get to where they are. Except Nancy Pelosi, who got her money by being in government. That should not be possible, to be elected to office and become a multi-millionare. Back when this country was founded, they only got a pittance in pay, because they weren't there very long, just long enough to legislate and then they went back to their jobs.

So, like I've always said, there is a difference between liberal and conservative successful people. Conservatives climb that ladder of success, and turn around and give a hand to those below them so they can climb up, too. Liberals on the other hand, climb the ladder of success, then kick the ladder down so no one else can climb up and threaten their success.

Don't Speak for me, 99%-ers.

Don't speak for me, those of you who call yourselves the 99%. I'm not rich, so I'm not the top 1%. I don't agree with any statement I've seen come out of the 99% movement. I wish I was rich, or at least better off, but I'm not advocating taking from those who earned it so I can have more.

I've been watching the Occupy Wall street thing. I see a bunch of rich trust fund babies who are having their parents put them through college. They don't want to actually work, they want everything handed to them on a silver platter, all the while talking about social justice. I also see a bunch of old hippies/has beens. They are just reliving their youth and the Viet Nam era protests. They don't want to say anything bad about Obama, but he's the one not withdrawing us from this war. Code Pink showed up as did (I assume) PAID Union thugs. I want to stand on top of a platform and inform the useful idiots that SOMEONE is paying some of you to be here. What about those not getting paid? Are you going to revolt either 1) against the hypocrites who are taking money to protest money or 2) against those who are paying some of you and not all of you?

I heard Francis Fox Piven state that this country has been subjected to propaganda techniques for 30-40 years. That's the first truth I've heard out of her mouth since I learned who she was. The only problem? She blamed it on Fox News, and calling the main stream media names. Let's see, did the white house boycott main stream media? Did they declare war on all media, or just FoxNews? She said that it made the people (paraphrasing) easily susceptible to the lies.

One thing I've learned from the left? If they accuse someone of something, it's usually something they themselves are doing. I don't know if it's projecting (putting their reactions and reasoning onto someone else) or just deflecting so no one sees what they're doing. The Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican party. Did you know that not a single Democrat voted to give Blacks the right to vote? And when it passed anyway, Democrats declared the primaries as private parties and wouldn't allow blacks to vote in them. They wanted to make sure that the candidate was already picked. And they didn't just lynch blacks, they lynched Republicans. Bet you didn't know that most blacks voted Republican for a long time. But, just like Pavlov's dogs, you can train people to respond the way you want. Intimidate them at the polls, burn crosses, hang people and they'll vote the way you want. You don't think the Black Panthers knew that when they stood outside voting booths carrying billy clubs? Intimidation is their modus operendi, their standard operating procedure.

So, now we start seeing all the anti-semitism in pictures coming from Occupy Wall Street. We see the anarchists coming out of the woodwork. I wish we could send them on a vacation to a country with no laws. Iran comes to mind. Let them see what humans do with no laws. They have visions of this utopia where no one tells them what to do (feeling animosity towards their parents, maybe?), where everything is free, and you don't even have to work for it (strange, but if no one is working, how do you get it?)

So stop calling yourself the 99%. You don't speak for me. You're more like the 47%, as in the ones who pay no taxes. I'd bet there are some who would love to get off welfare if they could, so I'd put it at more like the 33%.

It's just like the American Revolution. One third wanted to side with the British, one third just wanted to be left alone, and for life to go on as it always did, and one third fought for America's freedom. They are not the one third fighting for freedom. They are fighting for slavery, and the sad thing? They don't even know it.

I'm so Sick of Hearing about so Many People In Poverty

I decided to check it out for myself. First, I didn't use Google to look up these stats. I found a new browser that says they don't track you. I also get different results when I use them versus Google or Yahoo. It's called IXQuick Web.

So, here's what I found out. Mind you, this is from Wikipedia, a very left leaning source:

"Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993."

Let's think about that one for a minute. It's at the highest level since 1993. Do any of you out there know who was President in 1993? Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

It goes on:

"The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four."

OK, so for a family of four, you have to have at least one wage earner who makes more than $11.64 an hour. With no government benefits. This is, after all, the total income a person makes.

According to EHow:


"Income guidelines from the federal regulations are complex, but compare gross income to 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines and net income at 100 percent. There is a 20 percent deduction for earned income and another $142 deduction for households with one to three members. Income guidelines for Texas require a net income of $22,050 or 100 percent of federal poverty guidelines or less for a family of four, according to "The Dallas Morning News" in a 2009 report. Unearned income counts, including worker's compensation and other social programs."

So, that was for Texas food stamps. They list the minimum income as $22,050, so 130% of poverty is $50,715. That's $24.38 an hour and you qualify for food stamps. I don't exactly call that hurting. So, your net income has to be 100% of poverty ($22,050) - or less for a family of 4? Gross income can be 130%? I'd say it's confusing.

Also according to EHow:


"All states have a work requirement you must meet to keep your TANF benefits once your receive them. TANF recipients must engage in a certain number of work hours or work activities or risk their benefits being reduced or terminated. Each state must help TANF users develop a self-sufficiency plan, which takes into account skills, work history and education. As of 2011, single parents generally must work or participate in work activities for at least 20 hours per week, although single parents with children under the age of 6 cannot be penalized if they can't work because they cannot find adequate child care. Two-parent families must work for a combined total of 35 hours, which goes up to 55 hours if the parents get child-care assistance. Teen parents must attend school or job training activities."

Did you catch the part about if you have children under the age of 6 you can't be penalized if you can't find work because you can't find child care? So, just make sure you keep at least one child under the age of 6 and you don't have to work... that means when the child turns 7, you better have an infant in the house. No wonder grandparents are raising their teenagers illegitimate children as their own.

And 2 parent families have to work more hours? That only encourages single parent families.

So, I decided to find out what the minimum wage is, and once again I used Texas because that's where I live. The minimum wage in Texas is $7.25. So, if you work 20 hours you have a yearly income of $7540. (That's $7.25 an hour for 20 hours a week, 52 weeks in a year.) That qualifies you for welfare and food stamps. I also looked that up, and according to Answers.com:


"Allowance benefits vary in what is paid out to individuals or families for any of the welfare programs. As each state regulates their own SRS programs, payment allowances will vary from state to state based on geography, cost of living and employment/educational opportunities within that state.
However, a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.

Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.
These allowance benefits would be separate from any additional welfare benefits received such as child care, medical or utility assistance."

So, an average person, working 20 hours a week (80 hours a month, not taking into consideration every 3rd month you get 5 pay days), makes about $580 a month. Add with that the $200 in food stamps and the highest amount of welfare ($300 for single), that makes a monthly income of $1080. That's $12,960. If they worked the whole 40 hours a week, it would mean $10.37 an hour ($13.50 an hour for a 20 hour week). How is that poverty? And this number doesn't reflect Medicaid, help with child care (as in being able to deduct it off your taxes?) and assistance with utilities because "you're poor." If you have 2 people working, you need a total of 35 hours, so at minimum wage (once again only counting 4 weeks in a month, 12 months) and only adding the $500 food stamps and $900 welfare, your yearly income would be $28,980 before medicaid and other bennies.

Let's figure this on minimum wage and a 40 hour week: A minimum wage job in Texas would be $7.25 an hour, for a week, it would be $290, and a year it would be $13,920.

So you'd still qualify for benefits, add $500 for food stamps and $900 for welfare: now you make $30,720. In order to get that wage and be off government benefits, you would have to make $16 an hour ($17.25 if you only want to work the 35 hours). That's over double the minimum wage. In order to make that, you would have to have some education. So, I guess the proponents of redistribution of wealth would put the living wage at $16 an hour - for flipping burgers. Can you imagine what a whopper would cost? And if you think forcing places like fast food joints to pay their help $16 an hour would mean you can still feed a family of 4 for under $30, you're smoking something and I want some. It would turn into something closer to $60 for a family of 4 because they would still need to keep the lights on.

How is this encouraging people to get off Welfare? You have to make $16 an hour for a family of 4 to get off government benefits to make the same amount you can make working 40 hours and getting government benefits. And if you get off the government feed trough, you have to pay for your own medical, child care and utilities.

They should cut welfare and food stamps by 10% every year until it's not advantageous to get it. You should be making the poverty line WITH the benefits. That would encourage people to 1.) get a job and 2) be married with children instead of pushing out babies in order to get more money from the government. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out. It was for women who had a husband leave them and were forced to get a minimum wage job when they already had kids and had been out of the work force for a while. It was to help them until they could get a job that paid well enough to survive.

Why Do We Have to Settle?

Why is the question constantly being asked, "Would you vote for (fill in the blank) over Obama?" Come on, get real. I'd vote for my dog over Obama, but why should I have to settle for a RINO when I want a conservative? Why would I want to get to the same place, only slower, when I can turn this country back on the right course, which at this point would be a 180 degree turn? Why is the media deciding who I vote for?

Why is the debate over, is Romney's religion a cult, when they should be talking about his policies as a governor? Such as, he stated he would be pro-abortion (I refuse to call it pro-choice - if it's pro-life, it should be pro-death), he has stated that he's for gun control (which is anti-2nd amendment, he is (whether he admits it or not) pro-Obamacare due to the Romney care he keeps supporting. Why is it that people talk about Perry's choices as governor and not the fact that he's a Methodist? The double standard is striking, even when it comes from the establishment Republicans.

Even Bill Bennett on his radio program asked the question, "Would you vote for Romney over Obama?" Actually, he even asked "Would you vote for Bill Clinton over Obama?" It's a ridiculous question. WE WANT A CONSERVATIVE. Even Mike Gallagher is calling Romney a conservative. HE ISN'T A CONSERVATIVE if he's pro-abortion, anti-2nd amendment and for government run health care. He's just the most conservative out of Massachusetts.

I've even heard it debated that Herman Cain doesn't have any political experience. Guess what? George Washington didn't have any political experience either. I don't want the kind of politician we have now. I want a patriot. No experience in government at this point might be a good thing.

I think the press wants Romney because they know he's Obama light. I don't want Obama light. I think the establishment Republicans don't want to give up their gravy train either. Establishment Republicans are just as much of socialists as the Democrats. There is no difference. That's why Obama got elected, because no one wanted Obama light, with McCain, so they stayed home.

The press is focusing on "anyone is better than Obama, right?" NO, that's not right. I can't believe that the politicians didn't get that with the last election cycle. WE WANT CONSERVATIVE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE. I think the press is setting us up so we accept defeat and just vote for who they want us to.

I don't know what we all should do. I know I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination, but it won't change our government if we get Romney or Huntsman. I'm not sure about Ron Paul. I don't mind him, but I hate the Ron Paul zombies that will only support him. Are they going to stay home if he doesn't get the nomination? I guess we just all need to focus the debates on policies and not be distracted by the stuff that the press wants us to focus on. We need to weed through the propaganda on both sides. If someone is only slamming one or more candidate, and not presenting the good AND the bad, it's probably propaganda. There are good and bad with all the candidates. But I have to wonder when the "good" they come up with Romney is that he "looks presidential."

You can keep your Doctor and prices won't go up

Isn't that what President Obama promised when they passed Obamacare in the middle of the night? I wondered why they had to bribe the people of each state with bennies in order to justify their representatives voting for it. You can keep your doctors and prices won't go up.

Well, I have to dispute that. I have government health care. I have Tricare Prime, which is for military people. We opted for Prime 10 years ago when my husband got out of the Navy (after 20 years in) because it was better for us. The difference between Prime and Standard, is with Prime, you pay a set amount each year, and then only pay a co-pay for each doctor visit, no matter whether it's your primary or a specialist. With Standard, the government pays 80% of WHAT THEY ALLOW and you pay the rest. No yearly fee. We have a special needs son who would possibly need a heart valve replaced (thank God, he hasn't yet).

We learned a couple months ago that Walgreen's would be not carrying our prescription insurance (Express Scripts) any longer. We would have to switch over to a different pharmacy. We've been going to Walgreen's for the 6 years we've been in Texas. So, we switched to CVS. The store is nicer, I'm out faster, so I was pleased. They also have different lanes (inside and out) for drop off and pick up, as well as inside they have a consultation line. At the same time that we switched, our co-pay went up. I thought at first, it was just CVS charging more because they accept our insurance. I've run into that before.

As an explanation, I got an eye exam ($65) and they wouldn't reimburse me. They said I didn't go to a provider that accepted my insurance. So I called one of the ones that take Tricare Prime (which didn't exist 3 years ago, the last time I got glasses) and they charge $160 for the same eye exam. I can't say as I blame them. When Obamacare got passed, I checked out the reimbursement rate. They were reimbursing MRI's at 19%. I just recently rechecked it and it's fallen to about 12%. How do they exist? What will they do if the government goes to a single payer option? As in they force other insurance companies to close down and all you have is government insurance.

So, at first I wasn't that upset over the increase. I mean, it's still really low. We used to pay $3 for generic, $9 for non-generic and $22 of ones they don't approve. I am now paying $5 for generic and $12 for non-generic. That's still low, but I did the math. The generic went up 60% and the non-generic went up 75%. Would you like a 60% increase on your co-pays? The cost of living only went up, what, 5%? And we had NO warning that this was going to happen, just that we had to change pharmacies. I have one son on 3 meds, another son on 3 meds (2 are non-generic), I'm on 4 meds (one of which is non-generic) and my husband is on about 5. That's about $31 a month. It adds up. Right now my husband is not getting a paycheck because he broke his leg.

We must repeal Obamacare before it drags this country down to the bottom. I guess the government wants everyone on Medicaid.

Herman Cain's 9 9 9 plan

I haven't really decided who I'm voting for in the primaries. I know, I'm from Texas, so it's supposed to be either Rick Perry or Ron Paul, right? Well, I'm afraid of all the Ron Paul Zombies, even though I agree with about 80% of what Ron Paul says. I don't think I like his international ideas. I'm not sure how I feel about Rick Perry yet. I think the only way I'd vote for either of these is if they won the Republican nomination. Anyone is better than Obama, but I said that 3 years ago. Even if Rick Perry turns out to be a RINO, he can't do more damage than Obama has done in the past couple or more years.

I am really leaning toward Herman Cain. Yes, I know, I'm a white, conservative Republican, I'm supposed to be racist. And I'm not like a liberal who is voting for the black man to make myself feel good or prove I'm not a racist. If Herman Cain won as President, we'd really have our first Black President. Obama is half black. We'd also have a patriot instead of a Marxist.

But, anyway, I just heard Herman Cain discuss his 9 9 9 plan, and I like it. I wanted to tell you why. First, here's the plan: From his article found at http://hermancaincommentary.blogspot.com/2011/08/mr-president-youre-fired-but-if-you.html

__________________

A 9% business flat tax. Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses, and all dividends paid to shareholders.

A 9% individual income flat tax. Gross income less charitable deductions.

A 9% national sales tax. This significantly expands the tax base, which helps everyone.
This plan has the following advantages:

It is fair, revenue-neutral, transparent and efficient.
It puts zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits.
It replaces the payroll tax.
It will aid capital availability for small businesses.
It saves taxpayers $430 billion in annual compliance costs.
It eliminates the uncertainty holding this economy down.

____________________________

The individual income tax would lower everyone who currently pays taxes (not counting the 47% who get all their taxes back or more). It may harm those who get more back, because the only deduction would be charitable contributions. That means you don't get paid by the government just because you have 8 kids. You don't get any earned income credit because you chose to work part of the year, but not enough to actually have to file. It will emliminate the attitude of "Oh, I can get by with a part time job, because I can sit on my butt the other half and get earned income credit to make it up. You put out money, and get to take it off your taxes. We're currently in the 15% tax bracket, 25% if you would happen to count his retirement check. So, that's about $5000 now. The retirement check doesn't all count right now, but it does lower how much we get back because we have to live on it. I think the difference was something like %1700, because I forgot to add it at first. At 9% it would be between $3000 and $4800 if they counted the whole retirement check. I believe it would closer to $3500-4000,

The corporate tax is also a flat tax. Small business owners will still be basically taxed twice if they own their own business, but they'll know how much and you get deductions (even for share holders).

He doesn't say it, but the flat national sales tax on new items would catch the illegal aliens, the foreign investors, any legal visitor who buys things here. Unless that's what he meant about expanding the tax base. That's a pay as you go. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy used. I go to thrift stores a lot. There are some really nice ones. And if you consider that a charitable contribution or keep it one), the "rich" will donate more of their clothes in order to get that deduction. I got a pair of beaded capri's that still had the origninal tag on it ($120) for something like $5. But if he rich don't want to buy used, they have to buy new and pay 9% national sales tax. That theoretically should satisfy the liberals who don't want the rich to have nice things, or to pay more because they have more. If they aren't willing to pay the sales tax, they too are able to shop at thrift stores. It will also eliminate those like Buffett who are trying to get out of millions in taxes, while at the same time saying people just like them should pay more. You want to pay more? Either don't give charitable donation, or don't claim them. You don't have to claim deductions.

I know this sounded like a commercial for Herman Cain, but like I said, I haven't really made up my mind yet. There are points I agree with from all the candidates, it's just that this is the first simple plan I've seen.

What I think they should all agree on, is that whoever wins the nomination (and they all agree to stay in until all primaries are done), appoints all the other nominees into the cabinet. We could use people like all those running (except Huntsman, I don't believe at all he's conservative). I'm sure they could find some small cabinet appointment for him, though.

I've been thinking a lot about modern medicine lately. I guess partly because of undergoing cancer treatment, and the fact that my husband just recently broke his leg. There's a controversy over aspirin vs Tylenol. I found this about aspirin:

Hippocrates, a Greek physician, wrote in the fifth century B.C.E. about a bitter powder extracted from willow bark that could ease aches and pains and reduce fevers. This remedy is also mentioned in texts from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, and Assyria. Native Americans claim to have used it for headaches, fever, sore muscles, rheumatism, and chills. The Reverend Edward Stone, a vicar from Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, noted in 1763 that the bark of the willow was effective in reducing a fever.

These are the common side effects:

Gastrointestinal complaints (stomach upset, dyspepsia, heartburn, small blood loss). To help avoid these problems, it is recommended that aspirin be taken at or after meals. Undetected blood loss may lead to hypochromic anemia.

Severe gastrointestinal complaints (gross bleeding and/or ulceration), requiring discontinuation and immediate treatment. Patients receiving high doses and/or long-term treatment should receive gastric protection with high-dosed antacids, ranitidine, or omeprazole.

Frequently, central nervous system effects (dizziness, tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, centrally mediated vision disturbances, and headaches). The higher the daily dose is, the more likely it is that central nervous system side effects will occur.

Sweating, seen with high doses, independent from antipyretic action
With long-term treatment with high doses (for arthritis and rheumatic fever), often increased liver enzymes without symptoms, rarely reversible liver damage. The potentially fatal Reye's syndrome may occur, if given to pediatric patients with fever and other signs of infections. The syndrome is due to fatty degeneration of liver cells. Up to 30 percent of those afflicted will eventually die. Prompt hospital treatment may be life-saving.

Chronic nephritis with long-term use, usually if used in combination with certain other painkillers. This condition may lead to chronic renal failure.

Prolonged and more severe bleeding after operations and post-traumatic for up to 10 days after the last aspirin dose. If one wishes to counteract the bleeding tendency, fresh thrombocyte concentrate will usually work.

Skin reactions, angioedema,, and bronchospasm have all been seen infrequently.

But, on the other hand, we have Tylenol.

However, when taken in excessive quantities or when combined with alcohol, acetaminophen may cause death due to liver failure. In fact, an overdose of acetaminophen is the most common cause of fulminant hepatic failure as well as the most common cause of drug-induced liver disease in the United States. After acetaminophen became readily available in 1960 as an over-the-counter medication, it became one of the most popular means of attempting suicide. For liver injury to occur, acetaminophen must generally be consumed in quantities exceeding 15 grams within a short period of time, such as in a single dose. Although uncommon, ingestion of 7 to 10 grams at one time may cause liver damage.

Acetaminophen has a narrow therapeutic index. This means that the common dose is close to the overdose, making it a relatively dangerous substance.

Acetaminophen single doses above 10 grams or chronic doses over 5 grams per day in a well-nourished non-consumer of alcohol, or above 4 grams per day in a poorly nourished consumer of alcohol, can cause significant injury to the liver. Without timely treatment, acetaminophen overdoses can lead to liver failure and death within days. Because of the wide over-the-counter availability of the drug, it is sometimes used in suicide attempts.

Acetaminophen should not be taken after alcohol consumption, because the liver, when engaged in alcohol breakdown, cannot properly dispose of acetaminophen, thus increasing the risk of hepatotoxicity.

_________________

So, let's see if I have this straight....God gave us a tree whose bark can reduce pain and fever, among other things. Instead of harvesting it with intelligence, and replanting, when they started running low on trees, they just made a man-made alternative. The natural remedy had a few drawbacks, mostly gastrointestinal, and the man-made one causes liver damage, and the overdose is close to the level of treatment.

This got me to thinking. Why, when the big pharmaceutical companies see how many people are going back to home-remedies, or herbal remedies, don't they just start making those? Why do they cling to their old standbys and not get into the herbal remedy business?

Well, I think I came up with an answer. Herbal remedies are natural, and therefore have fewer side effects. Pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, cause side effects that will lead to needing more pharmaceuticals. If they sold herbal remedies, they would make less money because people wouldn't need as many different kinds to treat the different side effects.

Mr. Obama slams big Pharma on one hand, and yet he wants to make herbal remedies regulated like pharmaceuticals. He wants to drive out the small store that sells natural remedies, so that big pharma doesn't have any competition.

Another result of Obamacare

Well, the hits keep coming. I wrote about losing a doctor to Obamacare, now we had another run-in.

My husband bought a scooter (only something like 125cc's) because gas has gotten so expensive. He's well trained on a motorcycle/scooter. We had one in Bermuda. I had a 50cc scooter and he had a 100cc motorcycle. He was coming home from work Friday, when the lady in front of him braked suddenly and hard. He braked hard, too, but his hand slipped off the back break and he went down. The first responders didn't even have surgical scissors to cut his pant leg and boot off of him. The guy had to use a buck knife.

Then, the couldn't transport him to the NEAREST hospital, because it didn't have a trauma center. Baylor of Garland is more for "old people's diseases," as a doctor friend of mine put it; heart attacks, etc. They had to transport to Baylor of Dallas. After we thought about it, Medical Center of Dallas would have been closer. He broke his leg really badly. It was a spiral fracture of the tibia and fibula, just above the ankle. We spent over 6 hours in the ER.

Finally, the came up and said we had 2 choices. They could admit us, but the only surgeon they had was up for the trauma duty and probably wouldn't get to him until Monday. Baylor doesn't take our insurance (except for the emergency room). We told the nurse this, so she sent in the financial advisor. She said she had no idea if they took our insurance or not (wasn't she the FINANCIAL advisor?) but they would work with us to pay it off. I can't even imagine what 3 days in the hospital would cost. So, my husband called his own orthopedic surgeon, and he said he would see him Monday and do surgery probably Tuesday, as long as we got the referral in. That was the other option she gave us, since the surgeon couldn't do anything until today (Monday). They would send him home splinted and with pain pills. So we took that route.

The stupid (and yes, I meant to use that word) guys in the hospital did a pi$$ poor job of splinting his leg. It flopped every time he moved it. Then they sent us home. We got home at midnight. They gave him a prescription of Hydrocodone (10/325), which I had to wait until Saturday morning to fill. Luckily, I have neck pain from degeneration, and had some 7.5/325 hydrocodone. So, instead of getting immediate surgery, for a really bad fracture, the hospital was short staffed and didn't take our insurance anyway.

And we have military insurance, which is government insurance. I suppose when Obama care actually kicks in, they'll just make the hospitals and doctors accept it. I know why they are dropping out like flies falling off a carcass.....the government reimburses MRI's at about 19%. If all insurance is forced into this, or all facilities are forced to take insurance like government single payer they'll all go out of business. The government will have to bail out the hospitals. If they can tell GM to make an electric car, when no one wants to buy one, don't you think they'll tell hospitals who to treat and how much to charge? They've already said in the health care bill that all doctors will be paid the same, no matter whether they have a specialty or are a general practitioner. Let's face it, specializing takes more education. They should be able to charge a bit higher, they have more knowledge. Now, do I think they charge TOO much? Maybe, but we'll never know because the government won't let natural selection work. If no one had insurance, and every one had to pay their own bills, the doctor's would be in competition with each other. The prices would lower.

I have one doctor (my cardiologist) who currently charges what my primary (general practitioner, who is by the way, a Physician's assistant) charges. It's less than the pediatrician my kids go to. But, he's from Canada and believes in socialized medicine.

More Obamacare Fallout

Remember the line, "you will get to keep your doctors?" Well, we just lost another one. We have Tricare Prime. My 12 year old son has migraines and is ADHD. He's on Intunive and Concerta. His neurologist wanted him on an ADHD med that didn't have a stimulant, so he lowered the Concerta dose and added Intunive. His pediatrician handles the concerta script, while he does the Intunive. I called to refill the Intunive (which had several refills left) and was told they couldn't refill it. They told us to contact our doctor. Well, I've lost the business card, so I went to the website to find it. First of all they've changed all the categories and no longer have Child Neurologist. I had to look under Nervous System Disorders. I found my neurologist (who only does adults) but could not find his. I've lost another doctor.

I had to call his pediatrician to see if they can mail me a prescription for Intunive while I search for another child neurologist that takes my insurance. And I have GOVERNMENT INSURANCE. I tried to warn everyone about this 2 years ago, and no one would listen.

We have got to get Obamacare repealed. The insurance companies are deserting Medicaide and Tricare Prime like rats leaving a sinking ship. The government doesn't reimburse in a timely manner, nor very much. They're losing money. I had written an article a few years back when I went through all my receipts and discovered that they reimburse at about 19%. What if I owed the government taxes after I filed and decided to only send them 19% of what I owed? Do you think I could get away with it? If they are trying to force doctors to lower their prices, this is NOT the way to do it. They'll just make it to where doctors will refuse to take Medicaid/Medicare/Tricare. The only reason they currently take Tricare Standard is that the government only pays 80% of WHAT THEY ALLOW on claims. The hospital can come after the patient for the rest. Say you have a doctor's visit that costs $200. The government decides it's only worth $120. So they send the doctor $96 (which is 80%). The doctor will come back and tell you, well, they paid $96, you owe us $104. They won't say, ok, you only owe us $24. Where are they going to get the other $80? They may cost shift it, and charge people with other insurance plans $280 for their visit, but they are not going to lower their price to $120. If they did lower it to $120, the government would decide it would only pay $80, and then send them 80% of that, which is $64. You'd be paying $56 instead of $16.

Do they think no one in America has a calculator? Or is it that they figure they've dumbed down the younger generation of takers enough that they won't notice?

This is outrageous. The Tea Party better get their act together and get behind one candidate.

Taxes and Executive orders

I've been wondering about the report that President Obama wants to list all Farm Equipment as commercial vehicles and anyone who drives it will be required to have a CDL (Commercial Driver's License). I just got an email that lists all the current taxes. Did you know there's a tax on getting a CDL? If this passes, he'll be able to tax the farmers out of one hand, while giving them subsidies out of the other. He is desperate for revenue.

Here's a list of all the taxes (I don't know if this includes ALL taxes or not)

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


Some of these I can't comment on because I know nothing about them or don't have a theory. I realize that these have been in effect for a while, and I am not blaming Obama for STARTING the tax, just for exploiting the fact that it's there. I'm so glad we are all waking up, Republicans and Democrats, to what has been taking place in our country over the past 110 years or so.

Corporate Income Tax....he wants to raise the taxes on corporations. I didn't study economics (and I don't play an economist on TV), but someone owns that corporation, right? Don't they already pay taxes on what they themselves make? That would be double taxing someone.

Inheritance tax....couple that with Obamacare and their death panels, and you have people collecting inheritances before they'd planned because the government deems their parents too old to be treated. Taxes gathered in earlier.

IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax).... Can we charge interest on them when they don't pay us in time? How about all the people who get all of their taxes back because they didn't earn enough. Do they get to charge taxes on the fact that the government has earned interest on the money they collected during the year? If they invested that money, they earned interest on it.

Marriage License Tax.....Ever wonder why he's all for gay marriage? More people paying the Marriage License Tax. I'm surprised he doesn't lower the age for marriage so all his Muslim brothers who want to marry 4 women and as young as "in the cradle" will be taxed...oh, wait, Muslims aren't supposed to tax other Muslims or charge them interest.

Medicare Tax....again, couple this with Obamacare. He wanted more people on Medicare. Or, if this means the Medicare taken out of your check, couple it with Amnesty. Get the Illegals actually being paid above the table instead of under the table and you get more taxes. Bet the ones who vote for him won't realize this.

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax...Does this apply to cell phones? He's trying to get cell phones as a right. They're also giving out free phones (at least one company is, but I forgot their name at the moment). My son who is on SSI (adult handicapped) got a notice that said he could have a free cell phone. I didn't take them up on it because why would I give a phone to a mentally handicapped adult? I guess this is for the people on Disability that aren't really disabled and the welfare recipients.

Utility Taxes....Remember, under his plan, utilities will necessarily sky rocket.

Once again, I'm not blaming Obama for STARTING these taxes, just taking advantage of them. Some have said that he's inept and not very intelligent. I disagree. I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. If you don't believe me, look up the Cloward and Piven strategy. He's following it as best he can. Overwhelm the system, and it will crash. He can then restart it as a communist/Marxist system.

As an update: On April 15th, World Net Daily came out with a story about the tract of land (called the buffer zone) that was transferred to the Obama's wasn't assessed or had taxes paid on it. Here's the link for the article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=332929

According to Wikipedia (and I don't like to use them because they're very liberal/socialist): A property tax (or millage tax) is an ad valorem tax levy on the value of property that the owner of the property is required to pay to a government in which the property is situated. Multiple jurisdictions may tax the same property.

So, if you don't claim part of your property because it was given at different times, your real estate will be valued below what it actually is worth. Therefore you would pay less taxes. it's like adding square footage to your house and not having it reassessed. With normal average citizens, once they find out, they back charge you. Is Obama, a lawyer, going to say he didn't know?

Obamacare fallout

Well, I've discovered another consequence of Obamacare. I just went to get eye exams for me and my youngest son (actually back in July). The last time I got an eye exam, which was about three years ago, I could go anywhere, as long as I filed my own claim. I always went to Walmart. Walmart doesn't take Medicaid, which my oldest son is on. So I found an eye doctor that takes Medicaid. I thought, since my youngest son and I needed eye exams, we'd use the same place. I know they only pay for one eye exam every two years, which is stupid in and of itself. Every eye doctor I've ever gone to (and I've had glasses for 42 years) tells you to get an eye exam every year.

Well, I went, with my son, and filed the claim. Now, usually Tricare Prime will allow about 80% of what you actually bill, and then pay 80% of that. So you automatically deduct 40% and that's what you can expect to get back. I get the claim form, and they allowed the whole $65, but made it a deductible. So I called to find out what was up. I didn't go to one of their "approved" places. They labeled it a Point of Service, and basically disallowed it. And I bet this other place charges more than $65.

I just called and the place that actually takes Tricare Prime, charges $160 for an eye exam. Well, can you say Cloward and Piven? Let's double the price, and not pay for anyone who goes to a cheaper place. So, with all the financial distress this country is in, if I decide to go to a cheaper place, I have to pay for it myself. And we wonder why this country is in the mess it's in.

In addition to this, I had another claim that I filed. I got lymphadema in both arms from my cancer treatment. I had to buy lymphadema sleeves (compression sleeves). I paid $184 for the two together. They reimbursed me $88 and change. So they normally take off something like 20% and then reimburse you 80% of what they allow. But they will allow the full amount when they don't expect to have to pay it back to you.

Like I said, can you say Cloward and Piven?

African Socialism revisited

Hopefully this will go through. It seems my first attempt to post this must have hit a filter on Google blogs. It didn't post, and now I'll have to try to remember all I said.

I wrote a critique of Barak H. Obama Sr.'s critique of Sessional Paper No. 10 a while back, but with all that's gone on in the last couple of years, I thought I'd revisit it. I've learned a lot about this administration in the past two and a half years. This reveals a lot of their agenda.

I'll put direct quotes from the critique (in Barak H. Obama Sr.'s own words) in quotation marks. I'll then follow up with my critique (these are my opinions).

"If it is accepted that it is the leaders of a country who usually formulate and define ideologies, then the only source for this definition would be to get it from them either through their speeches, press reports or papers or through their actions."

Well, that says a lot. This administration has refused to acknowledge the definition of socialism as defined in the dictionary, and have been trying to redefine it since Obama got elected and accused of being a socialist. They've even gone so far as to have the media label us all socialists. We have to look towards their actions, mostly, since the speech is directed at redefining the term. President Obama nationalized how many companies, I lose count. The banks, the car industry, etc. That's a definition of socialism. President Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. That's a definition of socialism. President Obama wants equality for all, that's socialism. Make everyone the same, no matter the amount of energy they put into bettering themselves. If they don't get high enough on their own, lets take from the rich and give it to them. Doesn't matter that the rich worked to get where they are.

"After all, how can one talk of the independence of something people do not know?"

This applies to why they don't define socialism as well as the reason behind their attacks on the Tea Party. 1. Lets not define socialism, so they won't know we're doing it or how to fight it. 2. If we create confusion on who exactly the Tea Party is, no one will want to join it. If we create a cloud around them, everyone will be against them.

"...differ from scientific socialism unless one takes the statement 'society in turn will reward these efforts' to be different from 'reward to each according to his needs.'"

Well, of course they're different. Who determines ones needs? Capitalism is being rewarded by society. Socialism is collecting all the money and rewarding to their needs. So, if the government determines everyone should have a cell phone, for safety reasons, and you can't afford one, one will be provided for you. I see so many people on welfare with IPhones. My family has to work for a living and we can't afford an IPhone.

..."one cannot say that solutions cannot be the same where causes are different."

This explains why Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists and Muslims are all working together to destroy America. What do you think will happen, Mr. President when these other groups deem you not of any use any more? The Tea Party doesn't condone violence, but what about these groups you've sided with?

"If left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."

He's talking about consolidating land into the public domain. He advocates community ownership instead of individual. Doesn't this would like what they're doing with the farmers? They want all farm equipment listed as commercial vehicles, and everyone who drives them to get a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) and pass the same test as 18-wheeler drivers do.

"If the government should, however, feel that individual ownership is the best policy to take in order to bring development, then it should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country and this should apply to every body from the President to the ordinary man."

Well, except for applying to everyone. They don't apply any rule they make for the little man to themselves. But I can foresee this administration making an executive order limiting the size of farms....or just regulate them out of business.

"...so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others."

Ahh, there's the rub. They don't want free enterprise, or capitalism because it encourage people to accumulate more than the people who would rather sit on the porch and wait for the check from the government.

"If some of these firms were to stop functioning today the country would be at a standstill. Let the government take an active part in these spheres and see to it that the people are actively represented in them."

Let's take over a car company and fire the CEO and put our own guy in. Sound familiar?

"...taxation can be used as a means of forced savings...there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

These were a few paragraphs apart, but they state the same thing, so I included them together. This explains his desire to tax the rich more, because he has plans to keep lowering that upper limit until it includes everyone not currently on welfare. If you don't believe me read the health care bill. It raises the level at which people qualify for welfare. I guess I should be happy, because when it finally kicks in, my family will qualify. Look up (if you don't know it already) the Cloward and Piven strategy.

"I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can e utilized in investment for future development, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign aid."

Hmmm. 'Nuf said.

"There is a statement in the paper about encouraging tourism. it is surprising that the government thinks only about lodges but not about making it cheap so as to include those who are not so rich. At the present time, the cost of living is too high for tourists....there are no price controls so that only the very rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists."

Lets see, this sounds like forcing the airlines to set low air fares and the hotels to charge less. Probably only in liberal cities, though, because who cares if conservative cities prosper? Look at what they've done to Arizona (sued for trying to keep illegals out because the feds won't) and Texas (disallowing aid for all the fires we've had) and Missouri and other midwest towns affected by the flooding.

In conclusion, you can't really blame President Obama. He cut his teeth on communism/Marxism and the Muslim religion through his mother and dad and step-dad. Possibly he believes that his brand of Marxism/communism/socialism will work when no other one has. This is not the thinking of an American citizen. Most natural born citizens recognize our uniqueness. Heck, even some LEGAL immigrants recognize it better than our President.

Marriage Act

I've often wondered why Obama is against the Marriage Act, listing Marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.

I know a lot of people will disagree, but I believe he is a Muslim. You can twist words all you want, to justify anything. The Muslims are allowed to lie to the infidels. They're even allowed to make up stories to mislead. They aren't concerned with facts. They aren't supposed to charge each other interest, that's why you see all these Sharia compliant banks popping up. But they are instructed to charge high interest to infidels. This is supposed to make them want to convert because it's cheaper. I don't have the time to find these in the Koran, you'll have to do your own search on them.

So, I got to thinking. Muslims actually hate homosexuals. They kill them (wake up liberals who are gay and supporting Obama and Shari'a law). So why would he be in support of this? It seems to be against the Muslim belief, and you would think the Muslim community would be all up in arms about it.

But consider this. You've probably all heard the stories about Muslim men coming to America with their 4 allowed wives. They list one as a wife and list the others as extended family and put them all on welfare. If they 1 man 1 woman marriage law was repealed, what would stop it from becoming 1 man, 4 women? It's not about gay rights, they're just useful idiots. It's about getting Shari'a law into the United States. It's the camel's nose under the tent.

March Repost of Progressives in History

March 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!

March note: President Obama has now decided, on his own, that the Defense of Marriage is un-constitutional. This is way beyond the perview of the office of President. Is he now also the judicial branch of our government? He has told the judicial branch to not prosecute. So, what's next?

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