Japan VS American Welfare

I got to thinking as this terrible tragedy hit Japan...where are the riots? Where is the looting? I remember Katrina. I remember other tragedies that hit the United States, and the takers were taking to the streets to get what ever they could for free. I remember even riots over Rodney King turning into grab-fests. So, what is the difference?

I decided to look up Japan's Welfare system. I found a very interesting article in the New York Times (not the most conservative rag). Here's a direct link: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/10/world/welfare-as-japan-knows-it-a-family-affair.html

In a nut shell, you don't get any Welfare unless you're over 65. It doesn't say if you can apply if you're disabled or not. It does however, give some statistics. Only 0.7% receive benefits. They compared that to the United States: "compared with the 4.8 percent of Americans who get grants from Aid to Families With Dependent Children or the 9.7 percent who receive food stamps. About 2.3 percent of Americans receive grants through the Supplemental Security Income program, which serves the elderly, blind and disabled." I looked up the population of the United States: 307,212,123. I did the math, that's a total of 16.8%, or 51,611,636.66. That's a lot of people on government aid. I have to wonder how many are here legally, but that's another discussion. My son gets SSI because he's mentally/permanently disabled. If I take his check amount, and multiply it by the number of people on welfare (knowing that a lot of people will make much more than this), I get the outrageous number of $33,444,340,555.68. What is that? $33.4 Billion? I get confused going that high.

The Japanese Welfare system emphasizes family support first. You are to get aid from your family before you go to the government. Can you imagine that working here? I imagine there would be smaller families among the poor, so it wouldn't go over well. Right now we encourage people to have more kids than they can financially support because the more kids you have, the more money you get.

Japan also has a lower unwed pregnancy rate. Theirs is 1% while ours is 30% and climbing. They have fewer drug addicts and their unemployment rate is lower. Perhaps this is due to a higher pride ratio. They have a concept of shame, where I believe America is losing it's concept of shame. Now it's common for some factions of American society to be proud that they can game the system and get money from the government and live without working. The Japanese have a high work ethic.

I am not writing this to be anti-American. I myself have a high work ethic. I learned it from my father (and my mother). But this article states that the way Japan does their Welfare system does not encourage dependence on the government. It actually strengthens family ties. You treat your children well if you know they'll be taking care of you. You treat your parents well if you know you may need to go to them for support should something happen unforeseen financially. If you want to see how our Welfare system has encouraged dependency on the government, suggest taking it away and watch for the riots. And you can't blame it on the socialists. Apparently Japan has a higher redistribution of wealth that we do, too. I'm not sure if that means the government does it, or just generations pass their wealth on to their children instead of spending it.

Perhaps when President Obama looks to cut the budget, he should revamp our Welfare system. I wonder how many millions/billions/trillions he could save if he just made it where you don't get welfare or food stamps unless a doctor determines (on threat of losing his license - gotta remember Wisconsin) that you are disabled? Or what if they only paid for 3 children? I remember when I lived in Missouri, there was a law coming out that they were raising the number of children covered to 8. There were women going out and getting pregnant just so they could deliver under the deadline and get more money from the government. If you pay for 8 children, and someone who isn't married has 8 children just to get benefits, is that right? America with it's Welfare system has raised a generation of takers and gamers. Let's game the government, see if I can get disability and not even try to get a job.

And I know where I'm coming from. I have family (a sister-in-law and her husband) who are dirt poor. They currently live with his grandmother. If I weren't paying 2 mortgages, I'd support them more. They try hard. He goes from job to job, but at least he tries to work. He has too much pride to apply for any government aid. When he has a job, he has money, when he's between jobs, he doesn't. We gave them a huge food basket (from all members of the family) for Christmas. I don't usually help out with money, because she's not very responsible with cash, but we do with other things.

It's time America took responsibility for it's own. We need to help out our family members and try to shame people that are on assistance. I remember when people would try to hide the fact that they were paying with food stamps. Now it looks like any other credit card. Perhaps all the cashiers could say, "Oh, is this food stamps?" when they take the payment.

My views on Capitalism

First, here's the definition of Capitalism from Answers.com: Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

First, you have to wonder what a free market is. Here's Answers.com definition of a free market: Free Market: An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

Now, you have to ask yourself, is America actually based on a free market? Do you know (I don't) how many regulations are attached to every transaction we make? I don't know any small business owners except my husband's boss. We have been restricted until business are chocked. I took a business class a couple years back and it said that America is actually a mixed market.

And the definition of a mixed economy? Mixed economy: An economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises.

So, that does explain what we have better. In a free market, if someone fails in their business, they file bankruptcy. They tried, and the market wouldn't support what they wanted to do. They can analyze before they go under and try different things to prop it up. Maybe they picked the wrong product, maybe their prices are wrong, etc. But the point is, the government isn't involved.

Then, there's something fairly new to me: State Capitalism. Here's a definition from Wordnet: an economic system that is primarily capitalistic but there is some degree of government ownership of the means of production

I fear that's what our country is headed to. President Obama was not raised in America, so he's not fond of Capitalism. I somehow think he would love State Capitalism, because his actions say that he doesn't think the American people are smart enough to handle their own affairs. How do I come to this conclusion? He bailed out the banks. If a few banks fail, others will come in and do the job. We won't be left with no banks. He bailed out General Motors. If the people were happy about this, they would not have nicked name it Government Motors. There have been car companies that failed in the past. My dad had a Studebaker (actually 2 at different times). I did a web search and found the following site http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/autos/1002/gallery.failed_car_companies.fortune/index.html It lists 6 car companies that failed. The first one they talk about is Crosley Motors (1939 - 1952). He developed a car that was sold in Department stores for $250 and got 50 miles to the gallon. I suppose it wasn't consumer need that made that one go out. It was probably the big 3 squeezed him out of existence. Can't have a car that cheap that gets that good of gas mileage. The rest are the Tucker Corporation (1944 - 1949), Cunningham Motors (1950 - 1955), DeLorean Motor Company (1975 - 1982), and Vector Motors (1971 - 1993). (One was based in Canada, so I left it off.)

Companies come and go. That's capitalism. If you can't cut it, you're out. But for the government to step in and take over the company, and lets not be naive, when they give money for a bail out, they are in control. If someone gives me millions of dollars so my business doesn't fail, you better believe I feel obligated to listen to them. I found one article that said that credit card companies have been bailed out, too. If you have more than $10,000 in debt, they can reduce it because the federal government is paying them. That means that I am paying for someone else's credit card debt with my taxes. That's not a free market, or even a mixed economy. That's socialism and redistribution of wealth.

So back to capitalism. If I want to buy something, lets just say I need the services of a doctor. In a free market, I could pick the doctor that charges the least amount, go to him and pay in in cash, or set up a payment plan with HIM. But, since we are a mixed economy or even edging close to socialism, I can't do that. I have to go to my insurance company who then tells me who is in their system. In my case with military insurance, it's who is willing to accept the pittance of amount of money the government will pay them. The variety of doctors I can go to is getting smaller and smaller.

Using that same example, if the doctors charge to much, no one will come to them, and they won't be able to make payroll. They'll be forced to lower their prices to attract clients.

But this administration (and to be fair, a few previous to this one) are choking us with regulations and restrictions until we are not a free market. They claim that capitalism is dead and doesn't work, and yet, they don't give the proper atmosphere for it to thrive. The definition at the beginning is not in effect now. No wonder we have problems.

Tax the rich more?

I just did my taxes. No, I'm not the rich, and I am not poor enough to qualify for earned income credit. I fall right in the middle. The working class that unions are trying to incite. I decided to do a little research on the brackets and a few other things.

Here are the tax brackets:

Not over $16,750 ($8 an hour) 10% (single $8,375 which is $4 an hour)
$16,750 - $68,000 ($8-32.69) 15% ($8,375-34,000 $4-16.35)
$68,000 -$137,300 ($32.69-66) 25% (34,000-82,400 $16.35-39.62)
$137,300-$209,250 ($66-100.60) 28% ($82,400-171,850 $39.62-82.62)
$209,250-373,650 ($100.60-179.64 33% ($171,850-373,650 $82.62-179.64)
over $373,650 (over $179.64) 35% over $373,650 (over $179.64)

I notice a couple things in this. First, the single rate for the 10% and the lower part of the 15% bracket are below the minimum wage (Federal is $7.25, and I'll list the states that have a higher one later in this post). That means that they probably get it all back. They don't ACTUALLY pay 10-15% of their wages in. Possibly that's why there's such a big jump between the first 2 brackets. It doesn't matter what you put on the first one, they get it back. Let's put this in perspective and subtract the percentage from the higher amounts of these:

$16,750 would be $1,675, but they more than likely get it back.
$68,000 would be $10,395 and unless they're creative, they don't get it back.
$137,300 would be $34,325 which is half way into the second bracket!
$209,250 would be $58,590 and we're just $10,000 short of the yearly wage of the 3rd bracket.
$373,650 would be $130,777.50 (and I had to do that one twice!).

Now, I'm not sure (because I'm not a tax expert) whether you pay that higher percentage on the whole wage, or you pay the lower tax on the first part, then the higher bracket on what's in that level, etc. I wouldn't doubt that they make it that complicated. That lowers it a little bit. For instance, the $209,250 would end up paying only $43,000 a year instead of $58,590. Oooh, big tax break.

So, after figuring the hourly wage for each, I wondered what the minimum wage was. I didn't realize that a state could institute a higher minimum wage than the Federal one. Federal minimum wage is $7.25. The following states have a higher minimum wage, listed with their actual minimum wage:

Alaska $7.75
Arizona $7.35
California $8.00
Colorado $7.36
Connecticut $8.25
Illinois $8.25
Maine $7.50
Massachusetts $8.00
Michigan $7.40
Montana $7.35
Nevada $8.25
New Mexico $7.50
Ohio $7.40
Oregon $8.50
Rhode Island $7.50
Vermont $8.15
Washington $8.67
American Samoa $2.68-4.69
Washington, D.C $8.25
Guam $7.26
N. Mariana Is. $3.55
Puerto Rico $5.08-7.25
U.S. Virgin Is. $7.25 (unless you're a small business, then $4.30)

Now do you wonder why the Territories don't want to become states? The government and businesses would lose money big time. In Puerto Rico, if a company makes less than $250,000 a year, they don't have to pay attention to that nasty little minimum wage thing, and only need to pay $4.30. I can also see why people from American Samoa come here.

Taking this a little further, I decided to see what the qualifications for Earned Income Credit were. This you won't believe:

$13,460 (single) - $18,470 (married) no children ($6.47-8.88 an hour) Credit $457
$35,535 - $40,545 1 child ($17.08-19.49) $3,050
$40,363 - $45,373 2 children ($19.41-21.81) $5,036
$43,352 - $48,362 3 children ($20.84-23.25) $5,666

And better yet, here's what qualifies you for earned income credit, and can be counted as a dependant child:

Can be son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister or descendant of any of them. They have to be under 19 or under 24 and a full time student.

Oooh, let me move my nephew in and qualify for earned income credit. That would raise the amount I could earn because I only have one qualifying child. I could have taken over $5,000 off my taxes. What a crock. And the left says the tax breaks go to the rich?

Cloward and Piven

How many people (beyond watchers of Glenn Beck) have heard of Cloward and Piven, or the the Cloward-Piven strategy? Better yet, why are the other major talk radio hosts not talking about it? This is not a conspiracy theory. Francis Fox Piven is not some sweet little old lady that Glenn Beck is just picking on. When he says that she's the most dangerous woman in America, he doesn't mean she's physically imposing. It's her policies that have the ear of Presidents.

In case you haven't heard of her policies, there's a web site that goes into detail on them. http://cloward-piven.com/ There's an even more extensive article (using the following same quote) here: http://www.canadaka.net/forums/us-politics-f18/the-cloward-piven-strategy-to-implement-socialist-revolution-t8516.html

Here's a quote grabbed from the site: Quote:

Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.

The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the "crisis strategy" or the the "flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities strategy," the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants - more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism.

The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, put the Cloward-Piven strategy to work in the streets. Its activities led directly to the welfare crisis that bankrupted New York City in 1975.

Veterans of NWRO went on to found the Living Wage Movement and the Voting Rights Movement, both of which rely on the Cloward-Piven strategy and both of which are spear-headed by the radical cult ACORN.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute.


On August 11, 1965, the black district of Watts in Los Angeles exploded into violence, after police used batons to subdue a man suspected of drunk driving. Riots raged for six days, spilling over into other parts of the city, and leaving 34 dead. Two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were inspired by the riots to develop a new strategy for social change. In November 1965 - barely three months after the fires of Watts had subsided - Cloward and Piven began privately circulating copies of an article they had written called "Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done." Six months later (on May 2, 1966), it was published in The Nation, under the title, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."

Their whole premise was that if you collapsed the Welfare system, the poor would be angry that their entitlements were gone and rise up in protest, and take over the government. They knew that there weren't enough communists at the time to do this, they had to "use" the poor for their own needs. Isn't this the definition of slavery? They were using the poor (both black and white, anyone on welfare) as useful idiots.

Our nation went through a Great Depression in the late 20's early 30's. I tried to google Great Depression Riots, and only found that they demonstrated. I saw pictures of protests with signs, but there was no violence. The article said that there were some local riots, but the pictures were of people holding signs. That's a peaceful demonstration. If the people today (specifically in Wisconsin) walked around holding signs (can you say Tea Party?) I would have no argument. But they're trying to burn our country to the ground.

Have any of you seen Aliens 2? The Union bosses are like Burke....as Ripley said, "You sent those people in there without telling them what was there?" The Union bosses are telling them things to incite them, without telling 1) the truth or 2) what could happen should they get what they're asking for. Have you ever wondered what would happen if this form of government we have right now collapsed? What I can't figure out is why the anarchists are working with communists and Marxists. Anarchy is the lack of all government. Communism is "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." Marxism is "the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society."

So, why would they all unite in America? Because, 1) they hate capitalism, but they are willing to use it to make themselves rich (kick the ladder out when they get to the top) and 2) the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Have you considered what will happen once this system of America does collapse? They will all start fighting to instill their form of government. There are subtle differences between Marxism and Communism, but they are not a Republic. Do you think the people will be happy with either of these? Do you think these Idealists who are currently pushing for these forms of governments are going to be exempt from the oppression? Doubt it.

And that's why Piven is so dangerous. She's doing the same thing. She just flat out hates America as it is currently. She wants socialism. But we tried socialism in America already, it's just not taught in our schools anymore. The Jamestown colony started out as a socialism project. They decided that 1/3 would farm, 1/3 would look for gold and 1/3 would defend the colony. Do you know what happened? Everyone slipped out to look for gold. No one worked on the crops and they almost starved. I have forgotten for right now what his name was, but a Captain came in, and saw the problem. He granted OWNERSHIP of land to everyone, only requiring that they put 1/10th of their crops into the public store for winter. If everyone can draw from the store what they need without working, they won't work. It's human nature to not work. That's why welfare is so dangerous. That's why disability is so dangerous. That's why unlimited unemployment is so dangerous. Do I think all of these should be cut out? No. But there should be time limits on Welfare and Unemployment. It should be harder to get disability. Do you even need to prove anything anymore? I've seen people that I was shocked they were on disability. They looked perfectly able to me to work. Makes me almost want to claim disability for epilepsy. I could probably get it. But, if you have unlimited Welfare, why look for a job? You probably get more on Welfare with food stamps than you could from a minimum wage job. I've seen people on government assistance with better stuff than me. I mean I-phones, high end shoes and clothes, fancy hair cuts/weaves. Then the socialists say that the problem is all of our stuff. Look at who has the stuff! If you look at the average working class (and I don't include color in that statement because I lived in a mostly black working class neighborhood in Missouri) and they live within their means, are proud that they bought a house and keep it up well, and they only have what they can afford. The Unions are trying to get these people to envy the "rich" when they should be looking at the Welfare state and wondering why they have so much more than the working class. They would actually be happier if the working class could become dependent on Welfare. And that brings us back to Piven. If all the working class lost their jobs, because the Unions win at getting a "living wage," they would have to go on welfare. Where is the pride in that? When I was growing up, it was a shameful thing to be on food stamps. But now they made it just like a debit card, who knows you're on food stamps? I think if I were a cashier, I would say in a loud voice every time, "OH, is this food stamps?" We need to work on shaming these people that they are 3rd generation welfare recipients and make work the ethic again.

Reprint Progresistas en la historia

Reprint Progresistas en la historia

I have committed to reposted this as well, every month. Please help me get this out to our friends who still think best in their native language.

(NOTE: This is a reprint of my Socialists in History, in Spanish.)

Progresistas en la historia
La educación es nuestra mejor defensa. Me he comprometido a publicar algo cada mes, junto con los nombres de los Congresistas progresistas de la historia. Esto es algo que no podemos olvidar. No lo olvidaremos mientras yo aun tenga aliento. Si los progresistas de la oficina quieren que América olvide, tendrán que borrar nuestras memorias, nuestros escritos, nuestros medios electrónicos. En tiempos pasados bastaba con quemar los libros. Obama: ¿Qué esta usted hacienda ahora?
Progresistas en la historia

Mi esposo tiene un excelente set de libros de historia, a nivel de colegio, sorprendente a la vista. De hecho, estos libros son los que usé para mi Carta Abierta al presidente Obama (La cual deberé publicar después). Me ha estado inquietando el concepto del plan de 100 años que los Progresistas tuvieron, y aunque nadie ha salido a decir que ellos tenían un plan de 100 años, de estos libro saqué la idea. Un par de veces se me ha pedido explicar esto, así que eso intento hacer ahora.

Al cambio de siglo, los liberales escogieron llamarse Progresistas porque ellos calcularon que la gente estaría con el progreso. En ese momento hicimos saltos enormes en el progreso. Nuevos inventos de esa época: el teléfono, la luz eléctrica, el automóvil, las calles para carros, los aeroplanos, las fotos con movimiento; el mercado de bienes se desarrollo rápidamente, los granjeros disfrutaron de una prosperidad sin precedentes y el oro se descubrió en 1896 en Alaska. A pesar del pánico de los bancos en 1907, había un marco de ambiente prospero. Teníamos una mentalidad de progreso, de prosperidad en América. Todos los progresistas tuvieron que hacer lo que los relacionaba con la reforma y el progreso. Usted tuvo que tener un gran gobierno para poder tener progreso en sus mentes.

Para esa época, ellos habían establecido el Darwinismo como un hecho. Los más aptos sobreviven. Los otros mueren. Hay una cita de John D. Rockefeller: “El crecimiento de un negocio grande es meramente la supervivencia de los mejores adaptados... Esto no es una tendencia maligna en los negocios. Es meramente el trabajo de la ley de la naturaleza y la ley de Dios”. Así que poniendo estos conceptos juntos, ellos establecieron como un hecho que aquellos en contra de ellos estaban en contra del progreso y que morirían por ser los débiles. Conformaron la elite, una forma más alta de sociedad, mas desarrollada. Ellos también insistían en que los Estados Unidos era una democracia o que debía serlo. Somos una Republica no una Democracia. Pero como se ve aquí, los progresistas eran la elite, no los conservadores. Ellos no eran el hombre común.

En 1911, ellos dirigieron su agenda al sistema educativo. Charles A. Ellwood dijo que las escuelas deberían ser usadas como “un instrumento de conciencia de la reconstrucción social”. Los progresistas quisieron rechazar el aprendizaje religioso y humano (se tomó este como Humanidades o Artes) y experimentar con lo que trabajaría. Ellos querían “socializar” a la juventud. Es allí cuando comenzó la educación centrada en el niño. Esto hizo que las escuelas se fueran camino abajo hasta llegar a lo que tenemos ahora, con el Departamento de Educación tomando el control sobre los maestros dentro del salón de clases.

Los progresistas incluso arrasaron con el movimiento Cristiano, según estos textos, a los que llamaron los detractores (gospellers) sociales. Fueron llamados los atacantes mas viciados del sistema económico americano, pidiendo una reforma de nuestro sistema fiscal. Así pues, temprano en los 1900s, los socialistas se habían infiltrado en las iglesias reclamando reformas y usando la palabra de Dios como su apoyo. Ellos son los que básicamente estuvieron en contra del mercado libre y comenzaron todo este movimiento en contra de Dios para hacerse ricos. Fue allí cuando el muckraking se volvió popular. Adivino que es esto lo que ellos han estado haciendo. Exponer artículos se volvió una practica popular porque la gente estaba hambrienta por conocer la verdad de lo que realmente estaba pasando. Ellos llamaron a David Graham Phillips el traidor del Senado... ¿Suena familiar?

Originalmente, los partidos democráticos eran denominados partidos privados y excluían a los negros. Incluso después de la 14ava Enmienda, a los negros solo se les permitía votar en las elecciones generales. Supongo que no querían que ellos votaran hasta que hubieran decidido por quien ellos podían votar. El sur se volvió sólidamente Democrático. Los progresistas eran aquellos que reclamaban por la segregación. Se volvieron hacia los votos de los negros. En los 1800s, no había segregación, había una separación natural, pero no una forzada segregación. Para la Primera Guerra Mundial, una segregación extensa se había establecido en los estados de la vieja Confederación y los estados vecinos. En 1930, la ordenanza de Birmingham prohibió que negros y blancos jugaran juntos domino o damas. Hay que anotar dos cosas: La segregación fue impuesta por los blancos. La superioridad blanca fue proclamada y la inferioridad negra fue asumida. Booker T. Washington, un prominente líder negro, le pidió a todos: “sufrir en silencio” y ejercitar “la paciencia, (forbearance and patience have the same meaning) y el autocontrol en medio de las condiciones que se vivían”. El quería que ellos mejoraran y compitieran en el mercado. ¡Qué hombre tan inteligente!, mucho más allá de su época. Pero tengo que admitir que yo no creo que hubiera podido hacerlo bajo esas condiciones. Yo creo que todo fue orquestado para escoger el chivo expiatorio para futuros planes. Y es despreciable escoger una raza completa para estos planes…

¿Sabía usted que en 1894 ellos intentaron institucionalizar un ingreso fiscal pero encontraron que era anticonstitucional? La constitución dice que los impuestos deben ser repartidos a los estados de acuerdo a su población, por consentimiento… y eso no es un ingreso fiscal, ¿Acaso sí? Los progresistas se salieron de esta enmendando la cuenta tarifaria. Esta fue nuestra primera redistribución de la abundancia, de los ricos hacia los subsidiados o improductivos en la sociedad. 1913 es también cuando nosotros ratificamos la elección directa de nuestros senadores. Originalmente, los senadores eran representantes de los estados, no de la gente. Se suponía ser un sistema de balance y equilibrio, así los estados tendrían algo de control sobre el congreso.

Los progresistas tuvieron el poder nacional desde 1901 hasta 1921, abarcando las presidencias de Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, y Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt se refirió a su programa como la Repartición Cuadrática y Wilson tuvo su Nueva Libertad. Ninguno profesó ser socialista, pero ambos fijaron el país en una trayectoria socialista. El mismo Rossevelt dijo: “El Nuevo Nacionalismo pone la necesidad nacional antes de la ventaja personal o seccional… Este nuevo Nacionalismo ve al poder ejecutivo como el administrador del bienestar público. Exige de la judicatura que se interese sobre todo en el bienestar humano mas que en la propiedad…” Wilson dijo de su Nueva Libertad: “Yo creo que ha llegado el tiempo cuando el gobierno de este país, tanto nacional como estatal, establezca el escenario… para que la justicia de los hombres actué en cada relación de la vida… Sin la interferencia vigilante, la interferencia resoluta, del gobierno no puede haber juego justo entre los individuos y las instituciones de gran alcance tales como confiables. La libertad es hoy algo más que venir a menos.

El programa de un gobierno de libertad debe, en estos días, ser meramente positivo, no negativo; En otras palabras, es trabajo del gobierno ser pro-activo (dinámico)
El libro de historia dice que en los 1920s, los intelectuales se sintieron alienados por América. Ellos escaparon a Europa.

La Gran Depresión comenzó con la caída del mercado de 1929. Herbert Hoover era el presidente y era considerado como un presidente frio e insensible. En realidad, él creía que el gobierno no debía jugar ningún papel para sacar a los americanos de los lugares bajos donde estaban, que eso le tocaba a las caridades y negocios privados. El decía que una vez que el gobierno se convirtiera en el salvador, ellos dependerían de alguna manera y para siempre de la ayuda del gobierno. ¿Suena familiar? La Depresión fue el final de los conservadores en el poder. Así que los conservadores solo tuvieron el poder de 1922-1932. En 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt fue elegido y los progresistas regresaron al poder. El acusó a la administración del momento de gastar mucho pero dijo que él gastaría dinero en los ciudadanos americanos para liberarlos de la hambruna durante la depresión. ¿Suena esto familiar? Culpar a la administración pasada y gastar, gastar, gastar, pero, tengo excusa para esto.

En ningún momento de la historia ninguna administración ha hecho tanto en sus primeros 100 días para “cuidar” de la gente americana, o demostró más autoridad sobre nuestra economía. A menos que usted esté contando la presente administración. Llegó un punto en el que Roosevelt abiertamente intimidó al congreso, diciéndoles que si ellos no actuaban, él tomaría el poder y actuaría por si mismo. Estábamos en la mitad de la Depresión así que los americanos no veían esto como una usurpación del poder.

Aparentemente, una de las mentiras más grandes fue la Seguridad Social. También fue la mayor redistribución de riqueza con programas que los socialistas nunca antes habían ofrecido. Se estableció el 1% de impuesto sobre los salarios y un 1% correspondiente a los empleadores, y esto debía ponerse en un fondo confiable en la Tesorería. Una acumulación iba a ocurrir. Se estableció que el incremento sería lentamente. Mas adelante, se describió como un programa de seguro que debía asegurarlo para su retiro. Hubieron otros programas que se crearon al conjunto con la Seguridad Social, desde el comienzo eran programas de redistribución: compensación por desempleo, ayuda por menores dependientes, cuidado del menor y de maternidad, niños discapacitados, niños abandonados, programas de salud pública. La Seguridad Social se tornó en un esquema piramidal. Las personas con seguro social pagaban a aquellos que habían estado allí hace mucho tiempo. ¿Acaso la gente no va a la cárcel por organizar esquemas piramidales?

Harry S. Truman se convirtió en presidente después de la muerte de FDR, pero no se proclamó que él fuera un progresista. Aunque no se identificaba como progresista, su plan de Pacto Justo incluyó seguridad de salud a nivel nacional para los americanos, legislación de nuevos “derechos civiles”, leyes de Practicas de Empleo Justas, legislación sobre la vivienda, legislación sobre subsidios a granjeros y expansión de los programas de bienestar…suena progresista para mi. Él institucionalizó los subsidios para reducir la renta a las familias de bajos ingresos. El salario mínimo se incrementó a 75 centavos la hora. Ellos también incrementaron los préstamos de bajo interés a los granjeros. El seguro de salud nacional fue denegado porque la gente se dio cuenta de que esto era un primer paso hacia la medicina socializada. Una cuenta llamada a pagar subsidios directamente a los granjeros en vez de aumentar el costo de los productos agrícolas cuando el ingreso de la granja era inferior de un nivel determinado. Ellos decían que esto sonaba mucho más socialista.

Cuando Eisenhower fue electo en 1956 se conocía poco sobre sus políticas. ¿Se liberaría del gobierno dadivoso? Él era el primer republicano desde el comienzo del Nuevo Pacto. Se describía a si mismo como “básicamente conservativo” y decía que “ en los últimos veinte años el creciente socialismo estaba notándose positivamente en los Estados Unidos.” Pero en 1954, era claro que el no iba a responsabilizarse del gobierno dadivoso. Eisenhower aceptó el estado Dadivoso como un hecho. Eisenhower comenzó a hablar de que tan fructíferos debíamos ser, pero él tuvo el déficit mas alto en tiempo pacifico de la historia: 12.4 billones. El se negó a estar en medio del camino republicano. ¿O es esto un DIABLO? De todos modos, él no podía regresarse al camino del socialismo.

En 1960, John F. Kennedy fue electo presidente, el hombre mas joven elegido para oficiar la Presidencia de los Estados Unidos de América. Él institucionalizó varios programas pero estas series decían que él tenía un congreso democrático hostil. Después de su asesinato Lyndon B. Johnson se convirtió en presidente.

Johnson promulgó la Gran Sociedad, la cual estaba muy cercana a presentarse abiertamente como socialista. Aparentemente, Barry Goldwater vio el significado de ello y presionó por la libertad en su campaña e hizo perder la calma por Johnson. Johnson no se molestaba por tener escrúpulos y usó una combinación de torcer el brazo, sentido del humor y trueques para pasar las cuentas que quería que fueran aprobadas por un congreso controlado por los demócratas. El comité del congreso ncional republicano fue clasificado como el congreso 3B: (por sus letras en ingles) intimidado, criticado y lavados de cerebro. ¿Suena familiar? Johnson probablemente hizo más por el movimiento socialista que cualquier otro de los presidentes modernos. La única cosa que detuvo su momento fue la guerra de Vietnam. Cosa que también acabó con su presidencia.

Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial América había llevado bienestar al exterior. Como está citado en este libro de historia: “…los Estados Unidos promovieron el bienestar y subsidiaron el socialismo en Europa.” El Programa de Recuperación Europeo permite negociaciones entre los países, con todas las protecciones del mercado mundial. Ellos también dependían de Estados Unidos.

Esto trajo nuestra historia a los tiempos modernos, así que yo me detengo aquí. Además, mi mente ya está confundida. Ahora estoy en mi generación, y apenas tengo idea de lo que pasó antes de mi nacimiento. El vencedor escribe la historia. Y la historia ha sido reescrita todo el tiempo. Afortunadamente, nosotros tenemos el poder de elegir nuestros gobernadores y periódicamente hemos interrumpido sus planes a lo largo de estos 100 años. Pero usted puede ver cómo la trayectoria ha vagado y serpenteado por nuestra historia. Nosotros estamos bien dentro de una trayectoria de un estado de niñera. Yo he recogido una mejor apreciación del presidente Hoover. Siempre he escuchado que él fue un hombre frio e insensible, incluso que él no hubiera ayudado a la gente durante la depresión. Pero esa no es la verdad completa, ¿o sí? Es cómo dice la Biblia: Dale a un hombre un pez y lo ayudarás un día. Ensénale como pescar y lo ayudarás para toda la vida. Si continuamos poniendo a la gente en un mundo de bienestar y los dejamos allí ellos habrán aprendido sobre el desamparo. Yo tengo un hijo minusválido. Cuando le enseñaba sobre autosuficiencia siendo él muy joven, me dijeron que no me detuviera cuando él actuara cómo si no supiera hacerlo. Cualquier niño actuará como si no supiera vestirse si él piensa que usted lo va a vestir. ¿Por qué esforzarse si no tiene para que? Si él puede levantar sus manos y usted le pondrá su camisa, ¿Por qué él se va a molestar en hacerlo por sí mismo? Esto es lo que se llama aprender a ser un desamparado. Si yo le muestro a usted los duros momentos por los que estoy pasando y usted viene a ayudarme, yo no tendré que hacer nada. Yo hice lo mismo con mi madre para deshacerme del pepino. Yo removí el pepino en vez de la maleza. Es la naturaleza humana.

Más temprano o más tarde usted tendrá que cortar la ayuda. No estoy en contra del bienestar. Tal vez debería haber un límite de tiempo. Eso haría que la gente hiciera algo para mejorar por si misma. Todos caemos en momentos difíciles y necesitamos de una mano. Pero hay una porción tremenda de programas estatales niñeros y hay personas allí afuera diciéndole a usted cómo jugar al gobierno y conseguir su porcentaje “justo”. ¿Y para aumentar las ayudas gubernamentales e incluir 150% de pobreza e incluir que el gobierno maneje el cuidado medico? Yo no pienso eso. Deberíamos recortar la intervención del gobierno. Necesitamos otro Herbert Hoover ahora.

Fuente: A Basic History of the United States, Volumenes 1-5, por Clarence B. Carson, derechos de autor American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, Julio 1994

Nota agregada en marzo… la reforma del cuidado de salud ha pasado, firmada por Obama, y él está usando el dinero de la gente americana. Hay derechos para los americanos que hacen un 400% de pobreza. Ellos están penalizando a la juventud haciendo que todos los préstamos estudiantiles vayan a través del gobierno. Que cántaro. Y se supone que las condiciones pre-existentes de los ninos hasta los 26 deben cubrirse inmediatamente, pero olvidaron ponerlo en la propuesta. El representante Stupak excavó en una lengua anti-abortista, basado en un orden ejecutivo, el cual no admite ser digno del papel en el que fue escrito. Obama ha hecho pactos, intimidando congresistas, doblando brazos, para conseguir que esta reforma pase cuando en el pasado él había admitido que si la reforma al cuidado medico pasaba con menos del 60% no podría gobernar una nación. Entonces ¿Qué es lo que pretende? Hay un 76% de los Estados Unidos en contra de la reforma pero él de todas maneras esta forzandonos a aceptarla sin escuchar nuestro clamor. El quiere una revolución, así podra declarar una ley marcial y suspender las elecciones y declararse así mismo como un dictador. Eduquese usted mismo. Hay radicales de los 60-70s quienes ya hubieran salido a las calles a quemar cosas como muestra de protesta. Ellos no se explican por qué nosotros no lo hemos hecho.


Yo digo que empecemos a usar camisas desteñidas y hacer mofa de ellos. Regresemos a la charla maravillosa, usemos nuestros cabellos largos y las colas de caballo y empecemos a usar señales de paz. Paz…maravillosa…extraña…

Lori Ann Smith
Luchando por la libertad hasta mi ultimo aliento.
Oren por la paz

Translated by Sandra Davila.

http://loriann12.blogspot.com

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

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