I get so tired of President Barack Hussein Obama's rhetoric about the Republican's war on women. I barely remember the bra-burning era, so I had to do a little research.
According to Wikipedia (which is a left leaning organization, so you lefties can't argue it - it's not known for it's friendliness with the Republicans), the hippy movement started in the mid-60's.
Let's look at who was president during that time, meaning which side was in control. Lyndon B. Johnson took over after President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, so Democrats had control. He had control until the 1968 election, meaning January, 1969 it changed to Richard Nixon. It became big (the hippie movement) in 1967, still under Democrat control.
Whenever you have a group of people who feel they've been slighted, it doesn't usually end just because a new party takes over. President Nixon "inherited" (to use President Obama's rhetoric again) a mass disconnect with the female half of this population.
In 1967 they had a Summer of Love movement, still with Democrats in office. If the Democrats are so pro-women and the Republicans are so anti-women, why did this movement start under the Democrats?
This article talks about the 70's as being the "wane" of the movement, meaning it was dying out. This would be during President Richard Nixon's administration. So, the bad, terrible, anti-women Republican party was in control, and the hippy movement start dying out. Perhaps because people didn't feel things were so bad?
I'd just like someone to explain in specific examples just how the Republicans are anti-women. And I don't want the excuse that they want to make abortion illegal, so that violates a woman's rights. I tried to find what the ratio of boys to girls born in the United States is, and could only find this. So, basically it's about 105 boys for every 100 girls. But how many girls are aborted? If there are already more boys born, why would feminists want to abort females? What rights do the unborn girls have? If the Democratic party wants abortions to be available and paid for by the Government, aren't they anti-women?
Riddle me this...
Monday, August 27, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
No Easy Day - The Seal who is Writing about OBL
I can't stay quiet anymore. I am a member of The Blaze. They wrote a story that Al-Queda has posted the name and picture of the Seal team member who is writing his autobiography and what really happened when they took down Osama Bin Ladin. There are several commentors on The Blaze who accuse this young man of being just in it for the money. One comment said they thought SEALS never outed themselves, prefering to remain anonymous.
There are some things that are more important than life. I don't profess to be as brave or selfless as a Navy SEAL, but I know a thing or two about serving in the military. I'm sure this man, having dealt with the enemy, knows EXACTLY what could happen to him should he follow through and write this book.
Three years ago, when I started this blog, I cleared it with my husband first. I foresaw what could happen, I played the what if game. I knew that this man who usurped the office of President of the United States was capable of dastardly deeds. I knew the black helicopters could come for me. I felt sort of like the founding fathers (again, I'm not saying I'm that brave, just that I can imagine). I pledged my life, liberty and worldly possessions to this fight. In for a penny, in for a pound. I'm ALL IN.
I've been verbally assaulted by members of my community for my beliefs. I've been targeted by an obvious supporter of Obama from the City of Garland Code Violations Enforcement division. I haven't faced any threats to my life yet, unless you count a troll on the Blaze. I was bullied by a member of my side for taking too harsh of a stand that threw me into a bout with PTSD (I don't listen to the President speak anymore, because he's such a control freak he throws me into PTSD, too). I had to remove myself from that site for a while to recooperate. A friend convinced me to go back, and I went back stronger. I was blind-sided because I expected it from the enemy, but not a friendly site. I won't make that mistake again. I have my fire-proof panties on all the time now. And I only write a little blog with very small readership. I only expose what I can find on-line. I don't have any insider information.
We are AMERICANS. We are supposed to support those who risk their lives for our country. It doesn't matter if you think this war is unjust. They signed up to defend and protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Believe me, we have a lot of domestic enemies right now. The soldiers/sailors don't pick their wars. They can't say, I don't believe in that war, I'm not going. At least not if they want to stay out of military prison for the rest of their lives.
This man knew when he publicized the fact that he was writing this book what he was up against. I'm sure he doesn't want to die, just as I'm sure taking him out will be harder than the enemy thinks it will be. I pray for him, and for his protection. He's going up against two enemies: Al Qaeda and this administration. For all we know, this administration gave him up so they could threaten him. According to Obama, he's the only one who took OBL out. Why would he want someone publishing the truth?
Some ideals are worth dying for. Some things cause you to no longer remain silent. If you think this is just like any other time in America's history, just like every other election we ever held, you are severely deluded. We are fighting King George once again, only this time we somehow got tricked into electing him head over our own country. I didn't even see a reason to get involved in politics until this man came along.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
There are some things that are more important than life. I don't profess to be as brave or selfless as a Navy SEAL, but I know a thing or two about serving in the military. I'm sure this man, having dealt with the enemy, knows EXACTLY what could happen to him should he follow through and write this book.
Three years ago, when I started this blog, I cleared it with my husband first. I foresaw what could happen, I played the what if game. I knew that this man who usurped the office of President of the United States was capable of dastardly deeds. I knew the black helicopters could come for me. I felt sort of like the founding fathers (again, I'm not saying I'm that brave, just that I can imagine). I pledged my life, liberty and worldly possessions to this fight. In for a penny, in for a pound. I'm ALL IN.
I've been verbally assaulted by members of my community for my beliefs. I've been targeted by an obvious supporter of Obama from the City of Garland Code Violations Enforcement division. I haven't faced any threats to my life yet, unless you count a troll on the Blaze. I was bullied by a member of my side for taking too harsh of a stand that threw me into a bout with PTSD (I don't listen to the President speak anymore, because he's such a control freak he throws me into PTSD, too). I had to remove myself from that site for a while to recooperate. A friend convinced me to go back, and I went back stronger. I was blind-sided because I expected it from the enemy, but not a friendly site. I won't make that mistake again. I have my fire-proof panties on all the time now. And I only write a little blog with very small readership. I only expose what I can find on-line. I don't have any insider information.
We are AMERICANS. We are supposed to support those who risk their lives for our country. It doesn't matter if you think this war is unjust. They signed up to defend and protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Believe me, we have a lot of domestic enemies right now. The soldiers/sailors don't pick their wars. They can't say, I don't believe in that war, I'm not going. At least not if they want to stay out of military prison for the rest of their lives.
This man knew when he publicized the fact that he was writing this book what he was up against. I'm sure he doesn't want to die, just as I'm sure taking him out will be harder than the enemy thinks it will be. I pray for him, and for his protection. He's going up against two enemies: Al Qaeda and this administration. For all we know, this administration gave him up so they could threaten him. According to Obama, he's the only one who took OBL out. Why would he want someone publishing the truth?
Some ideals are worth dying for. Some things cause you to no longer remain silent. If you think this is just like any other time in America's history, just like every other election we ever held, you are severely deluded. We are fighting King George once again, only this time we somehow got tricked into electing him head over our own country. I didn't even see a reason to get involved in politics until this man came along.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Abortions and Discrimination
I got to wondering what countries support government paid for abortions and did a search on line. I came up with an article that was not what I was expecting to find. It's from April, 2009. It starts with this small paragraph:
"A study released last week by the Pew Hispanic Foundation says that nearly half of illegal immigrant households (47%) consist of couples with children. That is a greater share than for households of U.S.-born residents (21%) or legal immigrants (35%)."
It goes on to say that the reason Illegal "immigrant" households have a higher incidence of children in the household is because they can't afford to have them aborted. Therefore, the government should pay for these abortions. I wanted to ask the Hispanic community if this is true? Is it because you can't run to an abortion clinic and get rid of that child? Or is it because your faith says have children?
This fight was lead by a latina, Jessica González Rojas with the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. So, really? Do Mexicans who come here illegally with their 8 kids just want to abort their 9th? This sounds just like the Margaret Sangor who wanted to get rid of black babies so she founded "Planned Parenthood."
If I were younger, and still able to have children, I would love to go (pregnant) to a Planned Parenthood center and see just how much counseling I got on adoption, of if they only told me how I could abort it.
I couldn't find any information on which countries fund abortions but I did find an interesting study linking abortions to breast cancer. In China they found a 17% increase in breast cancer among women who had induced abortions. A Turkish study showed a 66% increase in breast cancer among women who had abortions.
As a Breast Cancer sufferer, I find this disturbing. I also find it disturbing that the Susan G. Komen center would send money to planned parenthood, knowing this fact. Do doctors want to drum up more business? Another study done in 2010 linked abortions to breast cancer, and specifically said that the Komen people knew and didn't issue warnings to women.
After finding this article I had to stop: warning graphic content. Our tax dollars fund abortions in China.
"A study released last week by the Pew Hispanic Foundation says that nearly half of illegal immigrant households (47%) consist of couples with children. That is a greater share than for households of U.S.-born residents (21%) or legal immigrants (35%)."
It goes on to say that the reason Illegal "immigrant" households have a higher incidence of children in the household is because they can't afford to have them aborted. Therefore, the government should pay for these abortions. I wanted to ask the Hispanic community if this is true? Is it because you can't run to an abortion clinic and get rid of that child? Or is it because your faith says have children?
This fight was lead by a latina, Jessica González Rojas with the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. So, really? Do Mexicans who come here illegally with their 8 kids just want to abort their 9th? This sounds just like the Margaret Sangor who wanted to get rid of black babies so she founded "Planned Parenthood."
If I were younger, and still able to have children, I would love to go (pregnant) to a Planned Parenthood center and see just how much counseling I got on adoption, of if they only told me how I could abort it.
I couldn't find any information on which countries fund abortions but I did find an interesting study linking abortions to breast cancer. In China they found a 17% increase in breast cancer among women who had induced abortions. A Turkish study showed a 66% increase in breast cancer among women who had abortions.
As a Breast Cancer sufferer, I find this disturbing. I also find it disturbing that the Susan G. Komen center would send money to planned parenthood, knowing this fact. Do doctors want to drum up more business? Another study done in 2010 linked abortions to breast cancer, and specifically said that the Komen people knew and didn't issue warnings to women.
After finding this article I had to stop: warning graphic content. Our tax dollars fund abortions in China.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
I Will Not Stay Silent - Live Like You Were Dying
Tim McGraw came out with that song the first time I fought cancer, Live Like You Were Dying. I remember it so well, because I was almost 41 and we were waiting for test results. We both cried every time we heard that song. I got the results the day after my 41st birthday. I survived that round, with a stage IV diagnosis being lowered to stage III.
Now, at almost 49, I've been battling stage IV cancer for about 21 months. I'm going to finally start living like I were dying. My doctor flat out told me there is NO cure for stage IV breast cancer. It's a case of going in and out of remission. I was in remission for 8 months of the middle part of this fight. Currently, the cancer is active. So I can say I know what it feels like to feel like you were dying. It's just a matter of time.
So, looking deep inside of me, what's the thing I would most want to do? I don't sky dive. I see no reason to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, just like I see no reason to go down in a perfectly good boat (submarine). So that's out. I can barely do my housework, or sit at the computer for long periods of time, so I guess riding a bull for 2.7 seconds is out, too. I live too far from my dad to go fishing with him, even though he's 80. I do call my mom often just to catch up, even if it's only been a few days.
What I want most in the world, is for my children to grow up in the America I knew as a kid. That America is slowly fading away, and I feel there's not much I can do to stop it.
I remember a simpler time. Perhaps it was because I was a kid and a bit naive. I remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school, and ending it with "Amen." Now God isn't allowed in school and the minority of the atheists rule over this Christian Nation. I remember learning the Pledge on Romper Room, as I ate lunch with the kids on the show who were eating their lunch. They made them stop eating lunch on camera "because there were too many children in this country who didn't get lunch." Really? With all the government programs we have for Welfare and food stamps? Where do the parents spend the money if not on food? I remember being taught by my parents that a job worth doing was a job worth doing well. Where is today's work ethic? A government worth scamming is a government worth scamming well? If your unemployment runs out, don't try harder to get a job, or lower your standards so you can get SOME kind of job. Just claim mental distress and get SSI. You never get something for nothing. All the other people who work are paying for your SSI. What happens when the whole country, or a majority of it, is out of work? You think the Democrats won't cut welfare if it means they lose some of their money?
I spent 4 years serving my country in the Navy, back during the cold war. I had quit college to join. I had been an art major, emphasis on commercial art, with a minor in journalism. I carried 17-19 hour semesters. I think 15 is considered a full load. I applied for a scholarship because government aid was for people who made less than my parents. Of course, they didn't make enough to send me to college, but they made too much for me to get a grant. I wanted (like every kid) to go to a college that wasn't in my home town. My home town had a fully accredited university, but I wanted out. I didn't get out. I went for a year and a half at the local university and lived at home. I worked as a temp at Proctor and Gamble hand packing cases while I waited for my enlistment time, because J.C. Penny's found out I was on delayed entry and fired me. My job in the Navy was as an Ocean Systems Technician, Analyst. No civilian equivalent. Not too many submarines come up the Mississippi River.
When I got out, I got a job through Man Power doing a chemical inventory at the Proctor and Gamble plant. It was a temporary job and I'm sure I got it because I was ex-Navy. I had been the safety officer for my department. Of course, that meant I conducted fire drills and sabotage alert drills, but it was experience. They knew I would be thorough. I was just making a bit of extra money before I got married, but I had a job. Later, I would become a 911 dispatcher to bring in extra money.
I don't know where America went, or the America I knew. It's been a creeping death, a slouching towards Gomorrah. I was busy raising a family and not paying attention, as I guess most of America was doing. The enemy snuck in, nose into the tent, and is destroying us from inside. I can no longer stand by and watch it happen.
I don't really know what I can do that's more than I'm doing. I canceled my Face Book page for a while, but friends back home convinced me to start it back up. It bothers me a bit that when I logged back in, everything was still there from 3 years ago when I started. It should have been wiped out and I should have had to start over. It just proves that information is there forever. So, I'll use that to my advantage. I'll tell stories, I'll shine the light on things I know to be wrong. I'll post on Face Book all the stories I can to try and convince my liberal friends and family that this is the wrong path. We are headed to destruction and most are too ideological to even see it. Let me tell you, being ex-military, you have no idea how hard I fought the belief that someone would run for President of the United States, that wanted to destroy the United States and make her into something more like Russia. In my mind it was treason to even suggest it. But I have to believe my own eyes. I have to believe what I was trained to see, enemy tactics. These are not the policies of someone who is trying to get this country back on the road to prosperity. These are the tactics of someone who wants to lower us down to the standards of 3rd world countries in order to even the playing field.
I will do what I can, for as long as I can, and hope that it makes a difference. To save America is the only wish I would give to Make a Wish.
Now, at almost 49, I've been battling stage IV cancer for about 21 months. I'm going to finally start living like I were dying. My doctor flat out told me there is NO cure for stage IV breast cancer. It's a case of going in and out of remission. I was in remission for 8 months of the middle part of this fight. Currently, the cancer is active. So I can say I know what it feels like to feel like you were dying. It's just a matter of time.
So, looking deep inside of me, what's the thing I would most want to do? I don't sky dive. I see no reason to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, just like I see no reason to go down in a perfectly good boat (submarine). So that's out. I can barely do my housework, or sit at the computer for long periods of time, so I guess riding a bull for 2.7 seconds is out, too. I live too far from my dad to go fishing with him, even though he's 80. I do call my mom often just to catch up, even if it's only been a few days.
What I want most in the world, is for my children to grow up in the America I knew as a kid. That America is slowly fading away, and I feel there's not much I can do to stop it.
I remember a simpler time. Perhaps it was because I was a kid and a bit naive. I remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school, and ending it with "Amen." Now God isn't allowed in school and the minority of the atheists rule over this Christian Nation. I remember learning the Pledge on Romper Room, as I ate lunch with the kids on the show who were eating their lunch. They made them stop eating lunch on camera "because there were too many children in this country who didn't get lunch." Really? With all the government programs we have for Welfare and food stamps? Where do the parents spend the money if not on food? I remember being taught by my parents that a job worth doing was a job worth doing well. Where is today's work ethic? A government worth scamming is a government worth scamming well? If your unemployment runs out, don't try harder to get a job, or lower your standards so you can get SOME kind of job. Just claim mental distress and get SSI. You never get something for nothing. All the other people who work are paying for your SSI. What happens when the whole country, or a majority of it, is out of work? You think the Democrats won't cut welfare if it means they lose some of their money?
I spent 4 years serving my country in the Navy, back during the cold war. I had quit college to join. I had been an art major, emphasis on commercial art, with a minor in journalism. I carried 17-19 hour semesters. I think 15 is considered a full load. I applied for a scholarship because government aid was for people who made less than my parents. Of course, they didn't make enough to send me to college, but they made too much for me to get a grant. I wanted (like every kid) to go to a college that wasn't in my home town. My home town had a fully accredited university, but I wanted out. I didn't get out. I went for a year and a half at the local university and lived at home. I worked as a temp at Proctor and Gamble hand packing cases while I waited for my enlistment time, because J.C. Penny's found out I was on delayed entry and fired me. My job in the Navy was as an Ocean Systems Technician, Analyst. No civilian equivalent. Not too many submarines come up the Mississippi River.
When I got out, I got a job through Man Power doing a chemical inventory at the Proctor and Gamble plant. It was a temporary job and I'm sure I got it because I was ex-Navy. I had been the safety officer for my department. Of course, that meant I conducted fire drills and sabotage alert drills, but it was experience. They knew I would be thorough. I was just making a bit of extra money before I got married, but I had a job. Later, I would become a 911 dispatcher to bring in extra money.
I don't know where America went, or the America I knew. It's been a creeping death, a slouching towards Gomorrah. I was busy raising a family and not paying attention, as I guess most of America was doing. The enemy snuck in, nose into the tent, and is destroying us from inside. I can no longer stand by and watch it happen.
I don't really know what I can do that's more than I'm doing. I canceled my Face Book page for a while, but friends back home convinced me to start it back up. It bothers me a bit that when I logged back in, everything was still there from 3 years ago when I started. It should have been wiped out and I should have had to start over. It just proves that information is there forever. So, I'll use that to my advantage. I'll tell stories, I'll shine the light on things I know to be wrong. I'll post on Face Book all the stories I can to try and convince my liberal friends and family that this is the wrong path. We are headed to destruction and most are too ideological to even see it. Let me tell you, being ex-military, you have no idea how hard I fought the belief that someone would run for President of the United States, that wanted to destroy the United States and make her into something more like Russia. In my mind it was treason to even suggest it. But I have to believe my own eyes. I have to believe what I was trained to see, enemy tactics. These are not the policies of someone who is trying to get this country back on the road to prosperity. These are the tactics of someone who wants to lower us down to the standards of 3rd world countries in order to even the playing field.
I will do what I can, for as long as I can, and hope that it makes a difference. To save America is the only wish I would give to Make a Wish.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Agenda 21 and Imminent Domain
I heard on some show (possibly Glenn Beck?) about a Democrat who was against Agenda 21. She had written a book, called "Behind the Green Mask: U. N. Agenda 21. I decided to go ahead and get it from Amazon. It's by Rosa Koire.
It's been very eye opening, even though I've read about half of the actual Agenda 21 from the U. N. site. The official Agenda 21 is all full of NewSpeak, meaning they twist words to mean something else and it almost sounds OK.
First, let me tell you what she says about herself. She's been a Democrat since 1974. She's pro-choice, anti-war, a feminist and gay. She married her partner in 2008, a partner she had been with for 16 years.
I tell you that to show what we DON'T have in common. I was raised a Democrat, but became Republican in 1984. I'm pro-life, not necessarily anti or pro-war, it would depend on what it was for, not a feminist unless you consider that I choose to be a stay home mom (usually feminists are against you making the choice to stay home or not abort your baby) and definitely not gay.
But, Agenda 21 takes precedence. I believe you can hold Ms. Koire's beliefs and still love America and the Constitution. The extreme left would have you believe one can't. Agenda 21 is not a Democrat/Republican issue. It's plan is to take away every country's sovereignty away.
It's a very good read, and I highly recommend it. As a capitalist, I won't give the whole book away because she deserves her money for a well written book. But, I came to a part I just had to write about because it pertains to me.
I've written before about our city code violation personnel, who drive around in their little vehicles just searching out people who violate city codes. I felt personally attacked by mine. I thought (for the past 3 years) that I was singled out for my political views, which I'm not very secretive about. When the health care bill got passed, we flew our flag upside down. We righted it when Walker got elected and broke the super majority of the Democrats. We didn't feel our country was out of distress, but we apparently have Viet Nam veterans who were having flashbacks because of it, and out of respect for them, just didn't fly it at all.
We got hit for our Crepe Myrtles not being trimmed 14 feet off the sidewalk and street. Who is going to need 14 feet above a sidewalk? Not too many super tall humans walking down my sidewalk. But we trimmed them. We got hit on a day that saw 12 INCHES OF SNOW IN TEXAS for not having our house numbers on the back of the house. We did, they were just hidden by the SNOW! I had wooden planks and cinder blocks (in anticipation of building shelves in the garage - they were free and we had to take them before we were prepared to make the shelves) laying FLAT ON THE GROUND. I did this because I didn't want to provide rodents a space to live. We live near a green belt. That's an area of the town that is allowed to grow trees, with a creek flowing through it. I got hit because everything is supposed to be 6 inches up off the ground. I emailed the code violation officer (silly them, they put their email address on the violation notice they send out) and explained that I was dealing with cancer, my husband was dealing with a broken leg and how in the world is that better than flat? It would give the rodents a place to hide. We didn't have a rodent problem until I complied and used the cinder blocks to support the planks and get everything 6 inches up off the ground. Then I got a violation for my tree IN MY YARD growing through the fence, and hanging over the fence a bit. She claimed that it was closer to the alley than a foot. I was on my way to my car when she drove by for that one, and she did NOT get out of her vehicle to measure. I guess they train these people really good, she can measure a foot with her eyes, while sitting in her vehicle. I thought it had something to do with the fact that I said, really loudly, "Yes, all my stuff is 6 inches up off the ground, so the rodents have somewhere to hide."
I emailed her that time, too, letting her know if she didn't hit everyone on my alley, and get the utility companies to come out and remove all the destroyed old utility boxes that I have to drive around, I would sue for harassment.
But, now that I read this book, I see a more sinister plan. Did you know if cities can label a part of the city as "blighted" they can come in and with imminent domain just take your house? Like I said, I live near a green belt. I also live near 2 low rent housing projects. Ms. Koire mentioned a personal experience she had after being elected to a panel to determine "redevelopment" projects. She said that one area listed as blighted and ready for the chopping block looked good to her. It supposedly had lots of code violations (which they didn't mention had been taken care of) and lots of vacant lots that ended up being parking lots and school yards. I also live 4 houses down from the high school. There's the high school, then the football field, then a cross road, then I'm the 4th house. So, now I have to wonder, are they setting it up to expand the school, expand the green belt and let everything go back to nature, or build low rent housing here?
All I can say is I'm PI$$ED. I am already under water on my loan. If they "justly compensate" me, it would probably be about $30,000 less than what I owe. I owe $105,000 on a house that cost $97,000 three years ago. I'd be willing to bet they would only give me about $75,000 for my house. I've seen 3-4 houses go up for sale in my neighborhood and only one sold. That's because the owners died and their daughter (who lives across the alley) took whatever was offered because it was owned free and clear.
So, now I have to wonder, is my neighborhood being targeted for being labeled as blighted? Every time I get a code violation from now on, I am notifying her that it has been fixed, in order to leave a paper trail so they can't say I never fixed it. Did you know if you don't trim your trees (at least in Garland, TX), they can "hire" someone to do it and then send you the bill. If you don't pay the bill, they can put a lien on your house until you DO pay it.
It's been very eye opening, even though I've read about half of the actual Agenda 21 from the U. N. site. The official Agenda 21 is all full of NewSpeak, meaning they twist words to mean something else and it almost sounds OK.
First, let me tell you what she says about herself. She's been a Democrat since 1974. She's pro-choice, anti-war, a feminist and gay. She married her partner in 2008, a partner she had been with for 16 years.
I tell you that to show what we DON'T have in common. I was raised a Democrat, but became Republican in 1984. I'm pro-life, not necessarily anti or pro-war, it would depend on what it was for, not a feminist unless you consider that I choose to be a stay home mom (usually feminists are against you making the choice to stay home or not abort your baby) and definitely not gay.
But, Agenda 21 takes precedence. I believe you can hold Ms. Koire's beliefs and still love America and the Constitution. The extreme left would have you believe one can't. Agenda 21 is not a Democrat/Republican issue. It's plan is to take away every country's sovereignty away.
It's a very good read, and I highly recommend it. As a capitalist, I won't give the whole book away because she deserves her money for a well written book. But, I came to a part I just had to write about because it pertains to me.
I've written before about our city code violation personnel, who drive around in their little vehicles just searching out people who violate city codes. I felt personally attacked by mine. I thought (for the past 3 years) that I was singled out for my political views, which I'm not very secretive about. When the health care bill got passed, we flew our flag upside down. We righted it when Walker got elected and broke the super majority of the Democrats. We didn't feel our country was out of distress, but we apparently have Viet Nam veterans who were having flashbacks because of it, and out of respect for them, just didn't fly it at all.
We got hit for our Crepe Myrtles not being trimmed 14 feet off the sidewalk and street. Who is going to need 14 feet above a sidewalk? Not too many super tall humans walking down my sidewalk. But we trimmed them. We got hit on a day that saw 12 INCHES OF SNOW IN TEXAS for not having our house numbers on the back of the house. We did, they were just hidden by the SNOW! I had wooden planks and cinder blocks (in anticipation of building shelves in the garage - they were free and we had to take them before we were prepared to make the shelves) laying FLAT ON THE GROUND. I did this because I didn't want to provide rodents a space to live. We live near a green belt. That's an area of the town that is allowed to grow trees, with a creek flowing through it. I got hit because everything is supposed to be 6 inches up off the ground. I emailed the code violation officer (silly them, they put their email address on the violation notice they send out) and explained that I was dealing with cancer, my husband was dealing with a broken leg and how in the world is that better than flat? It would give the rodents a place to hide. We didn't have a rodent problem until I complied and used the cinder blocks to support the planks and get everything 6 inches up off the ground. Then I got a violation for my tree IN MY YARD growing through the fence, and hanging over the fence a bit. She claimed that it was closer to the alley than a foot. I was on my way to my car when she drove by for that one, and she did NOT get out of her vehicle to measure. I guess they train these people really good, she can measure a foot with her eyes, while sitting in her vehicle. I thought it had something to do with the fact that I said, really loudly, "Yes, all my stuff is 6 inches up off the ground, so the rodents have somewhere to hide."
I emailed her that time, too, letting her know if she didn't hit everyone on my alley, and get the utility companies to come out and remove all the destroyed old utility boxes that I have to drive around, I would sue for harassment.
But, now that I read this book, I see a more sinister plan. Did you know if cities can label a part of the city as "blighted" they can come in and with imminent domain just take your house? Like I said, I live near a green belt. I also live near 2 low rent housing projects. Ms. Koire mentioned a personal experience she had after being elected to a panel to determine "redevelopment" projects. She said that one area listed as blighted and ready for the chopping block looked good to her. It supposedly had lots of code violations (which they didn't mention had been taken care of) and lots of vacant lots that ended up being parking lots and school yards. I also live 4 houses down from the high school. There's the high school, then the football field, then a cross road, then I'm the 4th house. So, now I have to wonder, are they setting it up to expand the school, expand the green belt and let everything go back to nature, or build low rent housing here?
All I can say is I'm PI$$ED. I am already under water on my loan. If they "justly compensate" me, it would probably be about $30,000 less than what I owe. I owe $105,000 on a house that cost $97,000 three years ago. I'd be willing to bet they would only give me about $75,000 for my house. I've seen 3-4 houses go up for sale in my neighborhood and only one sold. That's because the owners died and their daughter (who lives across the alley) took whatever was offered because it was owned free and clear.
So, now I have to wonder, is my neighborhood being targeted for being labeled as blighted? Every time I get a code violation from now on, I am notifying her that it has been fixed, in order to leave a paper trail so they can't say I never fixed it. Did you know if you don't trim your trees (at least in Garland, TX), they can "hire" someone to do it and then send you the bill. If you don't pay the bill, they can put a lien on your house until you DO pay it.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Question from a Prepper
I have to admit, I'm probably only an amateur prepper. I have about 3-9 months food put away for my family of 4. I don't have near enough water, although I do have a stream nearby. But given that we're in Texas and prone to droughts, it's not enough. I do have a bug out location picked out, should that become necessary. I've started to network and make friends who think like I do. Most of my current friends that I've had for a long time still have their heads buried in the sand and think that could never happen in America.
I started all this back in 2009, late, like September. So I'm just now coming up on 3 years. I built shelves along one living room wall out of cinder blocks and 12x1x9.5's to hold my extra food. I outgrew that, not wanting to go to the ceiling when it wasn't attached to the wall. I'd hate to have a mild earthquake and everything come tumbling down. So I built a smaller version along the back wall of my kitchen. The one in the living room has a sheet over the front, so it blends in with the wall better. The one in the kitchen is mostly lower than the table, which is up against it. Normal stuff is table height and higher, like the bread machine, a spinning thing that holds paper towels, spices and condiments and most of my baking pans. I also had to add a small 4 shelf book case and a cabinet that originally held Cd's, movies, etc. I have considered getting rid of some of the stuff in my china cabinet and using it, or at least the bottom. What I have is actually called a Hoosier Cabinet, with glass doors on top and a big section behind a solid door on the bottom, with 3 drawers beside that. There's a double door space that holds all my cookbooks currently. I even considered getting rid of the soffit (the part above the cabinets) in the kitchen and storing pots and pans and stuff up there so it would open up a couple shelves that I have.
When I first started storing food, I had a couple sites that were my favorite. Both were either Mormon or Mormon influenced. They have a policy that they should have a year's worth of food stored away. Their theory is that God tells us to prepare for disasters, just like in the Bible days. Sometimes you don't see how decisions can affect the future, but our saving up a bit of food has already paid off. A year ago, my husband broke his leg and was out of work for 2 months. All we had to buy was perishable foods (I can't drink powdered milk unless I have no choice, and I hadn't stored things like powdered sour cream or freeze dried cheese, things my family doesn't think it can live without). We still had his military retirement and my son's SSI, but we were also paying 2 mortgages. We never missed a bill, because groceries cost next to nothing. I gave up our small pittance of an allowance, but only cut my kids' allowances in half for those two months.
BUT, since my sources were either Mormon or Mormon influenced, I just got to thinking: Does Mitt Romney and his family have a year's supply of food put away? Everyone wants to know if he wears his magic underwear, but I'm more concerned in him having food put away. I don't think, as a Baptist, that it's against God to put away food. I actually believe the opposite. If you SEE disaster coming and you don't prepare, it's sort of like jumping off the roof and expecting God to save you. God allows us to see the disaster SO we can prepare for it. Will Romney persuade Paul Ryan to put away food, too? I always figured what's the worst that can happen? I don't have to spend money on food for a while, and eat my reserves so I can bank that money if nothing happens or we get better.
I do things a bit differently than the Mormons, however. I don't have 5 gallon buckets full of wheat and rice and beans. I put away canned goods and stockpiled recipes that only require shelf stable ingredients to fix. I didn't just buy cases of green beans and potatoes, unless they fit a recipe. I do have a lot of canned fruit because that's an area of nutrition that we often forget. I don't get enough fruit now, imagine an emergency situation. I put away a lot of canned meat, so I'm trying to experiment with Spam recipes. I'll also have Vienna sausages should I decide to go camping (my family survived on Vienna sausages for snacks while camping...no heat required or refrigeration).
If every government official had food stored away for a year, would that influence how they decided legislation? Would they be slower to just print money, knowing it would inflate prices even more? Or would they say to themselves, inflation won't affect me, because I can ride it out for a year?
I started all this back in 2009, late, like September. So I'm just now coming up on 3 years. I built shelves along one living room wall out of cinder blocks and 12x1x9.5's to hold my extra food. I outgrew that, not wanting to go to the ceiling when it wasn't attached to the wall. I'd hate to have a mild earthquake and everything come tumbling down. So I built a smaller version along the back wall of my kitchen. The one in the living room has a sheet over the front, so it blends in with the wall better. The one in the kitchen is mostly lower than the table, which is up against it. Normal stuff is table height and higher, like the bread machine, a spinning thing that holds paper towels, spices and condiments and most of my baking pans. I also had to add a small 4 shelf book case and a cabinet that originally held Cd's, movies, etc. I have considered getting rid of some of the stuff in my china cabinet and using it, or at least the bottom. What I have is actually called a Hoosier Cabinet, with glass doors on top and a big section behind a solid door on the bottom, with 3 drawers beside that. There's a double door space that holds all my cookbooks currently. I even considered getting rid of the soffit (the part above the cabinets) in the kitchen and storing pots and pans and stuff up there so it would open up a couple shelves that I have.
When I first started storing food, I had a couple sites that were my favorite. Both were either Mormon or Mormon influenced. They have a policy that they should have a year's worth of food stored away. Their theory is that God tells us to prepare for disasters, just like in the Bible days. Sometimes you don't see how decisions can affect the future, but our saving up a bit of food has already paid off. A year ago, my husband broke his leg and was out of work for 2 months. All we had to buy was perishable foods (I can't drink powdered milk unless I have no choice, and I hadn't stored things like powdered sour cream or freeze dried cheese, things my family doesn't think it can live without). We still had his military retirement and my son's SSI, but we were also paying 2 mortgages. We never missed a bill, because groceries cost next to nothing. I gave up our small pittance of an allowance, but only cut my kids' allowances in half for those two months.
BUT, since my sources were either Mormon or Mormon influenced, I just got to thinking: Does Mitt Romney and his family have a year's supply of food put away? Everyone wants to know if he wears his magic underwear, but I'm more concerned in him having food put away. I don't think, as a Baptist, that it's against God to put away food. I actually believe the opposite. If you SEE disaster coming and you don't prepare, it's sort of like jumping off the roof and expecting God to save you. God allows us to see the disaster SO we can prepare for it. Will Romney persuade Paul Ryan to put away food, too? I always figured what's the worst that can happen? I don't have to spend money on food for a while, and eat my reserves so I can bank that money if nothing happens or we get better.
I do things a bit differently than the Mormons, however. I don't have 5 gallon buckets full of wheat and rice and beans. I put away canned goods and stockpiled recipes that only require shelf stable ingredients to fix. I didn't just buy cases of green beans and potatoes, unless they fit a recipe. I do have a lot of canned fruit because that's an area of nutrition that we often forget. I don't get enough fruit now, imagine an emergency situation. I put away a lot of canned meat, so I'm trying to experiment with Spam recipes. I'll also have Vienna sausages should I decide to go camping (my family survived on Vienna sausages for snacks while camping...no heat required or refrigeration).
If every government official had food stored away for a year, would that influence how they decided legislation? Would they be slower to just print money, knowing it would inflate prices even more? Or would they say to themselves, inflation won't affect me, because I can ride it out for a year?
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
August Repost of Progressives in History
August Repost of Progressives in History
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month. 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, 2012 Note: Now Obamacare has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a tax and therefore constitutional. It's so funny how it got passed because it WASN'T a tax. I call that taxation without representation. If I could afford it, I'd drop my insurance and pay cash. Kinda hard to do when you're battling cancer, though.
August, 2011 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
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month. 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, 2012 Note: Now Obamacare has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a tax and therefore constitutional. It's so funny how it got passed because it WASN'T a tax. I call that taxation without representation. If I could afford it, I'd drop my insurance and pay cash. Kinda hard to do when you're battling cancer, though.
August, 2011 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
Monday, August 6, 2012
History Lesson on the Crusades
There has been a lot said about the Crusades lately, mostly from the Left. They like to use it as an example of how hateful Christians can be, and how intolerant they are. The general story is that during the Crusades, Christians went out and forced people to accept Christ or die. That's usually their prime defense when we Christians talk about how the Muslims are commanded to convert infidels or kill them.
So, I thought I'd do a bit of research. I was always under the impression that the Crusades were a fight with the Muslims, who were trying to take over everything and make the world their caliphate. Let's see where this goes. The Truth shall set you free.
First, this is where I got the information, in case you just want to look it up for yourself. I'll be reading it myself and summarizing.
As we start out, we find that the Crusades were indeed a Holy war, but they were against the Saracens, which is what they called Muslims at the time. The Muslims had taken over Jerusalem, and we were trying to take it back. The Muslims didn't just take Jerusalem, they killed 3,000 Christian Pilgrims. Funny how the left doesn't mention that. I suppose Christians were supposed to just stand by and let it go...turn the other cheek. Jerusalem is holy to Christians, too, not just the Jewish people. Jesus preached there, was killed there and buried there. They were trampling on our Holy ground, too.
The main goal of the crusades was to free Jerusalem, but they also turned to freeing Spain from the Moors, Slavs and Pagans. There were nine crusades which lasted a total of 200 years. Christians and Muslims were at war for 200 years. That is just unbelievable, mind boggling, to me. I can't imagine being at war for 200 years.
The first crusade was called the People's Crusade. The people were furious that Muslims had killed 3,000 Jews and taken Jerusalem. They took off, most of them poor and poorly armed, to do what they could. I suppose a grass roots movement. Thousands of pheasants died because they were poorly organized andhad little to no military experience, and they were up against an army of Muslims.
But, real armies were starting to assemble. Most of the soldier volunteers came from France, causing the Muslims to call the crusade Francs. Makes one wonder if that's the reason there are such a high number of Muslims in France now. Maybe they decided to take it back by infiltration? One estimate has the Muslim population of France currently at 33%.
It was during the first Crusade that Jerusalem was retaken and most Muslims were slaughtered. You have to remember, they were an invading army and Israel wasn't a nation yet. And they attacked first, by killing 3,000 people. The Muslims didn't stop at killing the Pilgrims, either. They turned the Christian churches into stables or burned them to the ground. The first crusade lasted from 1071-1099.
There was a period of uneasy peace from 1099 until 1147. Then the Muslims rose again and took a Christian city, Edessa. Actually, they took the whole county of Edessa. The failure of the Muslims has been linked to a lack of organization, but they learned from their mistakes and became better at war.
This time, instead of just pheasants and common folk, or possibly even lower nobility being involved, kings got involved and took up the red cross. The Emperor of Germany and the King of France took up the cause. Sadly, this crusade only lasted two years and ended in 1149 in failure.
In 1187, the Muslims recaptured Jerusalem. This time, England joined with France and Germany to conquer the Muslims. During the first attempt, the Emperor of Germany, now 70, died.
Something I didn't know, is that the key player on the Muslim side, Saladin, was apparently just as gentlemanly to his enemies as England was to hers. There are stories of how when the king of England was ill, Saladin sent choice fruits to him. Another time, he sent an Arabian horse. Apparently he enjoyed the battle and didn't want to win at any means, but fairly. King Richard and Saladin reached a truce where Christians could visit the holy land without paying a tribute, having free access to our holy lands and have possession of the coastal cities.
The Fourth Crusade was started by a young Pope who wanted glory. I guess this is the turning point where it was no longer defense. But we're talking 1202 now, when the first one started in 1096, so over a hundred years later. I could defend them and say that after 104 years of war, they didn't trust the Muslims. The Crusaders first took Constantinople. They pillaged it and practically burnt it to the ground, destroying thousands of years of history. This weakened the city and it fell to the Turks 200 years later.
The next Crusade was taken up by children. Their leader was a child of 12 who preached that God told him to do it. It started in 1212. Strange, huh? Exactly 800 years ago. The French children, about 30,000 of them set off in a ship, but were betrayed and sold into slavery. Some returned home when hunger hit. In the same year, a German lad raised an army of 50,000 men, women and children to his battle cry. They crossed the Alps where they expected to sail for Palestine, but were never heard from again. This marked the decline of the crusades.
The rest were called minor crusades, and affected nothing in the holy land. The Fifth Crusade lasted from 1217-1221.
The Sixth Crusade (1227-1229) got Jerusalem back.
The Seventh crusade was from 1249-1254. It doesn't give details.
The Eighth crusade was in 1270 and had no effect.
The Ninth Crusade was 1271-1272 and they won back Nazareth. A treaty was signed that was favorable to the Christians.
The Last Crusade saw the loss of the last Christian city, Acre, in 1291.
I think through this we can learn a lesson. It started out as a Holy cause, avenging the deaths of so many Christians. It was an answer to an invasion and attack. But, the Catholic church took up the cause and turned it into a power grab. I think we see that in current times. We, as the Taxed Enough Already party, have done a lot of good. We need to make sure that the Republican party doesn't co-opt us for their own power struggle. But, this was not strictly a way of Christians to make people convert to Christianity. We also see that at one time Muslims had honor. What happened?
So, I thought I'd do a bit of research. I was always under the impression that the Crusades were a fight with the Muslims, who were trying to take over everything and make the world their caliphate. Let's see where this goes. The Truth shall set you free.
First, this is where I got the information, in case you just want to look it up for yourself. I'll be reading it myself and summarizing.
As we start out, we find that the Crusades were indeed a Holy war, but they were against the Saracens, which is what they called Muslims at the time. The Muslims had taken over Jerusalem, and we were trying to take it back. The Muslims didn't just take Jerusalem, they killed 3,000 Christian Pilgrims. Funny how the left doesn't mention that. I suppose Christians were supposed to just stand by and let it go...turn the other cheek. Jerusalem is holy to Christians, too, not just the Jewish people. Jesus preached there, was killed there and buried there. They were trampling on our Holy ground, too.
The main goal of the crusades was to free Jerusalem, but they also turned to freeing Spain from the Moors, Slavs and Pagans. There were nine crusades which lasted a total of 200 years. Christians and Muslims were at war for 200 years. That is just unbelievable, mind boggling, to me. I can't imagine being at war for 200 years.
The first crusade was called the People's Crusade. The people were furious that Muslims had killed 3,000 Jews and taken Jerusalem. They took off, most of them poor and poorly armed, to do what they could. I suppose a grass roots movement. Thousands of pheasants died because they were poorly organized andhad little to no military experience, and they were up against an army of Muslims.
But, real armies were starting to assemble. Most of the soldier volunteers came from France, causing the Muslims to call the crusade Francs. Makes one wonder if that's the reason there are such a high number of Muslims in France now. Maybe they decided to take it back by infiltration? One estimate has the Muslim population of France currently at 33%.
It was during the first Crusade that Jerusalem was retaken and most Muslims were slaughtered. You have to remember, they were an invading army and Israel wasn't a nation yet. And they attacked first, by killing 3,000 people. The Muslims didn't stop at killing the Pilgrims, either. They turned the Christian churches into stables or burned them to the ground. The first crusade lasted from 1071-1099.
There was a period of uneasy peace from 1099 until 1147. Then the Muslims rose again and took a Christian city, Edessa. Actually, they took the whole county of Edessa. The failure of the Muslims has been linked to a lack of organization, but they learned from their mistakes and became better at war.
This time, instead of just pheasants and common folk, or possibly even lower nobility being involved, kings got involved and took up the red cross. The Emperor of Germany and the King of France took up the cause. Sadly, this crusade only lasted two years and ended in 1149 in failure.
In 1187, the Muslims recaptured Jerusalem. This time, England joined with France and Germany to conquer the Muslims. During the first attempt, the Emperor of Germany, now 70, died.
Something I didn't know, is that the key player on the Muslim side, Saladin, was apparently just as gentlemanly to his enemies as England was to hers. There are stories of how when the king of England was ill, Saladin sent choice fruits to him. Another time, he sent an Arabian horse. Apparently he enjoyed the battle and didn't want to win at any means, but fairly. King Richard and Saladin reached a truce where Christians could visit the holy land without paying a tribute, having free access to our holy lands and have possession of the coastal cities.
The Fourth Crusade was started by a young Pope who wanted glory. I guess this is the turning point where it was no longer defense. But we're talking 1202 now, when the first one started in 1096, so over a hundred years later. I could defend them and say that after 104 years of war, they didn't trust the Muslims. The Crusaders first took Constantinople. They pillaged it and practically burnt it to the ground, destroying thousands of years of history. This weakened the city and it fell to the Turks 200 years later.
The next Crusade was taken up by children. Their leader was a child of 12 who preached that God told him to do it. It started in 1212. Strange, huh? Exactly 800 years ago. The French children, about 30,000 of them set off in a ship, but were betrayed and sold into slavery. Some returned home when hunger hit. In the same year, a German lad raised an army of 50,000 men, women and children to his battle cry. They crossed the Alps where they expected to sail for Palestine, but were never heard from again. This marked the decline of the crusades.
The rest were called minor crusades, and affected nothing in the holy land. The Fifth Crusade lasted from 1217-1221.
The Sixth Crusade (1227-1229) got Jerusalem back.
The Seventh crusade was from 1249-1254. It doesn't give details.
The Eighth crusade was in 1270 and had no effect.
The Ninth Crusade was 1271-1272 and they won back Nazareth. A treaty was signed that was favorable to the Christians.
The Last Crusade saw the loss of the last Christian city, Acre, in 1291.
I think through this we can learn a lesson. It started out as a Holy cause, avenging the deaths of so many Christians. It was an answer to an invasion and attack. But, the Catholic church took up the cause and turned it into a power grab. I think we see that in current times. We, as the Taxed Enough Already party, have done a lot of good. We need to make sure that the Republican party doesn't co-opt us for their own power struggle. But, this was not strictly a way of Christians to make people convert to Christianity. We also see that at one time Muslims had honor. What happened?
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Reprint Progresistas en la historia
Reprint Progresistas en la historia
I have fallen behind on resending this out. I know if you decided to explore my site, it's there, but I like it to be on the main page at least once a month. Please help me get this out to our friends who still think best in their native language. The Left is doing their job of slaughtering history, let's do our job of getting the real history of the United States out, and expose the progressives and their agenda. They only want the vote, they don't care about the minorities or down-trodden.
(NOTE: This is a reprint of my Socialists in History, in Spanish, translated by a dear friend of mine from Columbia, who is here LEGALLY.)
Progresistas en la historia
La educación es nuestra mejor defensa. Me he comprometido a publicar algo cada mes, junto con los nombres de los Congresistas progresistas de la historia. Esto es algo que no podemos olvidar. No lo olvidaremos mientras yo aun tenga aliento. Si los progresistas de la oficina quieren que América olvide, tendrán que borrar nuestras memorias, nuestros escritos, nuestros medios electrónicos. En tiempos pasados bastaba con quemar los libros. Obama: ¿Qué esta usted hacienda ahora?
Progresistas en la historia
Mi esposo tiene un excelente set de libros de historia, a nivel de colegio, sorprendente a la vista. De hecho, estos libros son los que usé para mi Carta Abierta al presidente Obama (La cual deberé publicar después). Me ha estado inquietando el concepto del plan de 100 años que los Progresistas tuvieron, y aunque nadie ha salido a decir que ellos tenían un plan de 100 años, de estos libro saqué la idea. Un par de veces se me ha pedido explicar esto, así que eso intento hacer ahora.
Al cambio de siglo, los liberales escogieron llamarse Progresistas porque ellos calcularon que la gente estaría con el progreso. En ese momento hicimos saltos enormes en el progreso. Nuevos inventos de esa época: el teléfono, la luz eléctrica, el automóvil, las calles para carros, los aeroplanos, las fotos con movimiento; el mercado de bienes se desarrollo rápidamente, los granjeros disfrutaron de una prosperidad sin precedentes y el oro se descubrió en 1896 en Alaska. A pesar del pánico de los bancos en 1907, había un marco de ambiente prospero. Teníamos una mentalidad de progreso, de prosperidad en América. Todos los progresistas tuvieron que hacer lo que los relacionaba con la reforma y el progreso. Usted tuvo que tener un gran gobierno para poder tener progreso en sus mentes.
Para esa época, ellos habían establecido el Darwinismo como un hecho. Los más aptos sobreviven. Los otros mueren. Hay una cita de John D. Rockefeller: “El crecimiento de un negocio grande es meramente la supervivencia de los mejores adaptados... Esto no es una tendencia maligna en los negocios. Es meramente el trabajo de la ley de la naturaleza y la ley de Dios”. Así que poniendo estos conceptos juntos, ellos establecieron como un hecho que aquellos en contra de ellos estaban en contra del progreso y que morirían por ser los débiles. Conformaron la elite, una forma más alta de sociedad, mas desarrollada. Ellos también insistían en que los Estados Unidos era una democracia o que debía serlo. Somos una Republica no una Democracia. Pero como se ve aquí, los progresistas eran la elite, no los conservadores. Ellos no eran el hombre común.
En 1911, ellos dirigieron su agenda al sistema educativo. Charles A. Ellwood dijo que las escuelas deberían ser usadas como “un instrumento de conciencia de la reconstrucción social”. Los progresistas quisieron rechazar el aprendizaje religioso y humano (se tomó este como Humanidades o Artes) y experimentar con lo que trabajaría. Ellos querían “socializar” a la juventud. Es allí cuando comenzó la educación centrada en el niño. Esto hizo que las escuelas se fueran camino abajo hasta llegar a lo que tenemos ahora, con el Departamento de Educación tomando el control sobre los maestros dentro del salón de clases.
Los progresistas incluso arrasaron con el movimiento Cristiano, según estos textos, a los que llamaron los detractores (gospellers) sociales. Fueron llamados los atacantes mas viciados del sistema económico americano, pidiendo una reforma de nuestro sistema fiscal. Así pues, temprano en los 1900s, los socialistas se habían infiltrado en las iglesias reclamando reformas y usando la palabra de Dios como su apoyo. Ellos son los que básicamente estuvieron en contra del mercado libre y comenzaron todo este movimiento en contra de Dios para hacerse ricos. Fue allí cuando el muckraking se volvió popular. Adivino que es esto lo que ellos han estado haciendo. Exponer artículos se volvió una practica popular porque la gente estaba hambrienta por conocer la verdad de lo que realmente estaba pasando. Ellos llamaron a David Graham Phillips el traidor del Senado... ¿Suena familiar?
Originalmente, los partidos democráticos eran denominados partidos privados y excluían a los negros. Incluso después de la 14ava Enmienda, a los negros solo se les permitía votar en las elecciones generales. Supongo que no querían que ellos votaran hasta que hubieran decidido por quien ellos podían votar. El sur se volvió sólidamente Democrático. Los progresistas eran aquellos que reclamaban por la segregación. Se volvieron hacia los votos de los negros. En los 1800s, no había segregación, había una separación natural, pero no una forzada segregación. Para la Primera Guerra Mundial, una segregación extensa se había establecido en los estados de la vieja Confederación y los estados vecinos. En 1930, la ordenanza de Birmingham prohibió que negros y blancos jugaran juntos domino o damas. Hay que anotar dos cosas: La segregación fue impuesta por los blancos. La superioridad blanca fue proclamada y la inferioridad negra fue asumida. Booker T. Washington, un prominente líder negro, le pidió a todos: “sufrir en silencio” y ejercitar “la paciencia, (forbearance and patience have the same meaning) y el autocontrol en medio de las condiciones que se vivían”. El quería que ellos mejoraran y compitieran en el mercado. ¡Qué hombre tan inteligente!, mucho más allá de su época. Pero tengo que admitir que yo no creo que hubiera podido hacerlo bajo esas condiciones. Yo creo que todo fue orquestado para escoger el chivo expiatorio para futuros planes. Y es despreciable escoger una raza completa para estos planes…
¿Sabía usted que en 1894 ellos intentaron institucionalizar un ingreso fiscal pero encontraron que era anticonstitucional? La constitución dice que los impuestos deben ser repartidos a los estados de acuerdo a su población, por consentimiento… y eso no es un ingreso fiscal, ¿Acaso sí? Los progresistas se salieron de esta enmendando la cuenta tarifaria. Esta fue nuestra primera redistribución de la abundancia, de los ricos hacia los subsidiados o improductivos en la sociedad. 1913 es también cuando nosotros ratificamos la elección directa de nuestros senadores. Originalmente, los senadores eran representantes de los estados, no de la gente. Se suponía ser un sistema de balance y equilibrio, así los estados tendrían algo de control sobre el congreso.
Los progresistas tuvieron el poder nacional desde 1901 hasta 1921, abarcando las presidencias de Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, y Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt se refirió a su programa como la Repartición Cuadrática y Wilson tuvo su Nueva Libertad. Ninguno profesó ser socialista, pero ambos fijaron el país en una trayectoria socialista. El mismo Rossevelt dijo: “El Nuevo Nacionalismo pone la necesidad nacional antes de la ventaja personal o seccional… Este nuevo Nacionalismo ve al poder ejecutivo como el administrador del bienestar público. Exige de la judicatura que se interese sobre todo en el bienestar humano mas que en la propiedad…” Wilson dijo de su Nueva Libertad: “Yo creo que ha llegado el tiempo cuando el gobierno de este país, tanto nacional como estatal, establezca el escenario… para que la justicia de los hombres actué en cada relación de la vida… Sin la interferencia vigilante, la interferencia resoluta, del gobierno no puede haber juego justo entre los individuos y las instituciones de gran alcance tales como confiables. La libertad es hoy algo más que venir a menos.
El programa de un gobierno de libertad debe, en estos días, ser meramente positivo, no negativo; En otras palabras, es trabajo del gobierno ser pro-activo (dinámico)
El libro de historia dice que en los 1920s, los intelectuales se sintieron alienados por América. Ellos escaparon a Europa.
La Gran Depresión comenzó con la caída del mercado de 1929. Herbert Hoover era el presidente y era considerado como un presidente frio e insensible. En realidad, él creía que el gobierno no debía jugar ningún papel para sacar a los americanos de los lugares bajos donde estaban, que eso le tocaba a las caridades y negocios privados. El decía que una vez que el gobierno se convirtiera en el salvador, ellos dependerían de alguna manera y para siempre de la ayuda del gobierno. ¿Suena familiar? La Depresión fue el final de los conservadores en el poder. Así que los conservadores solo tuvieron el poder de 1922-1932. En 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt fue elegido y los progresistas regresaron al poder. El acusó a la administración del momento de gastar mucho pero dijo que él gastaría dinero en los ciudadanos americanos para liberarlos de la hambruna durante la depresión. ¿Suena esto familiar? Culpar a la administración pasada y gastar, gastar, gastar, pero, tengo excusa para esto.
En ningún momento de la historia ninguna administración ha hecho tanto en sus primeros 100 días para “cuidar” de la gente americana, o demostró más autoridad sobre nuestra economía. A menos que usted esté contando la presente administración. Llegó un punto en el que Roosevelt abiertamente intimidó al congreso, diciéndoles que si ellos no actuaban, él tomaría el poder y actuaría por si mismo. Estábamos en la mitad de la Depresión así que los americanos no veían esto como una usurpación del poder.
Aparentemente, una de las mentiras más grandes fue la Seguridad Social. También fue la mayor redistribución de riqueza con programas que los socialistas nunca antes habían ofrecido. Se estableció el 1% de impuesto sobre los salarios y un 1% correspondiente a los empleadores, y esto debía ponerse en un fondo confiable en la Tesorería. Una acumulación iba a ocurrir. Se estableció que el incremento sería lentamente. Mas adelante, se describió como un programa de seguro que debía asegurarlo para su retiro. Hubieron otros programas que se crearon al conjunto con la Seguridad Social, desde el comienzo eran programas de redistribución: compensación por desempleo, ayuda por menores dependientes, cuidado del menor y de maternidad, niños discapacitados, niños abandonados, programas de salud pública. La Seguridad Social se tornó en un esquema piramidal. Las personas con seguro social pagaban a aquellos que habían estado allí hace mucho tiempo. ¿Acaso la gente no va a la cárcel por organizar esquemas piramidales?
Harry S. Truman se convirtió en presidente después de la muerte de FDR, pero no se proclamó que él fuera un progresista. Aunque no se identificaba como progresista, su plan de Pacto Justo incluyó seguridad de salud a nivel nacional para los americanos, legislación de nuevos “derechos civiles”, leyes de Practicas de Empleo Justas, legislación sobre la vivienda, legislación sobre subsidios a granjeros y expansión de los programas de bienestar…suena progresista para mi. Él institucionalizó los subsidios para reducir la renta a las familias de bajos ingresos. El salario mínimo se incrementó a 75 centavos la hora. Ellos también incrementaron los préstamos de bajo interés a los granjeros. El seguro de salud nacional fue denegado porque la gente se dio cuenta de que esto era un primer paso hacia la medicina socializada. Una cuenta llamada a pagar subsidios directamente a los granjeros en vez de aumentar el costo de los productos agrícolas cuando el ingreso de la granja era inferior de un nivel determinado. Ellos decían que esto sonaba mucho más socialista.
Cuando Eisenhower fue electo en 1956 se conocía poco sobre sus políticas. ¿Se liberaría del gobierno dadivoso? Él era el primer republicano desde el comienzo del Nuevo Pacto. Se describía a si mismo como “básicamente conservativo” y decía que “ en los últimos veinte años el creciente socialismo estaba notándose positivamente en los Estados Unidos.” Pero en 1954, era claro que el no iba a responsabilizarse del gobierno dadivoso. Eisenhower aceptó el estado Dadivoso como un hecho. Eisenhower comenzó a hablar de que tan fructíferos debíamos ser, pero él tuvo el déficit mas alto en tiempo pacifico de la historia: 12.4 billones. El se negó a estar en medio del camino republicano. ¿O es esto un DIABLO? De todos modos, él no podía regresarse al camino del socialismo.
En 1960, John F. Kennedy fue electo presidente, el hombre mas joven elegido para oficiar la Presidencia de los Estados Unidos de América. Él institucionalizó varios programas pero estas series decían que él tenía un congreso democrático hostil. Después de su asesinato Lyndon B. Johnson se convirtió en presidente.
Johnson promulgó la Gran Sociedad, la cual estaba muy cercana a presentarse abiertamente como socialista. Aparentemente, Barry Goldwater vio el significado de ello y presionó por la libertad en su campaña e hizo perder la calma por Johnson. Johnson no se molestaba por tener escrúpulos y usó una combinación de torcer el brazo, sentido del humor y trueques para pasar las cuentas que quería que fueran aprobadas por un congreso controlado por los demócratas. El comité del congreso ncional republicano fue clasificado como el congreso 3B: (por sus letras en ingles) intimidado, criticado y lavados de cerebro. ¿Suena familiar? Johnson probablemente hizo más por el movimiento socialista que cualquier otro de los presidentes modernos. La única cosa que detuvo su momento fue la guerra de Vietnam. Cosa que también acabó con su presidencia.
Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial América había llevado bienestar al exterior. Como está citado en este libro de historia: “…los Estados Unidos promovieron el bienestar y subsidiaron el socialismo en Europa.” El Programa de Recuperación Europeo permite negociaciones entre los países, con todas las protecciones del mercado mundial. Ellos también dependían de Estados Unidos.
Esto trajo nuestra historia a los tiempos modernos, así que yo me detengo aquí. Además, mi mente ya está confundida. Ahora estoy en mi generación, y apenas tengo idea de lo que pasó antes de mi nacimiento. El vencedor escribe la historia. Y la historia ha sido reescrita todo el tiempo. Afortunadamente, nosotros tenemos el poder de elegir nuestros gobernadores y periódicamente hemos interrumpido sus planes a lo largo de estos 100 años. Pero usted puede ver cómo la trayectoria ha vagado y serpenteado por nuestra historia. Nosotros estamos bien dentro de una trayectoria de un estado de niñera. Yo he recogido una mejor apreciación del presidente Hoover. Siempre he escuchado que él fue un hombre frio e insensible, incluso que él no hubiera ayudado a la gente durante la depresión. Pero esa no es la verdad completa, ¿o sí? Es cómo dice la Biblia: Dale a un hombre un pez y lo ayudarás un día. Ensénale como pescar y lo ayudarás para toda la vida. Si continuamos poniendo a la gente en un mundo de bienestar y los dejamos allí ellos habrán aprendido sobre el desamparo. Yo tengo un hijo minusválido. Cuando le enseñaba sobre autosuficiencia siendo él muy joven, me dijeron que no me detuviera cuando él actuara cómo si no supiera hacerlo. Cualquier niño actuará como si no supiera vestirse si él piensa que usted lo va a vestir. ¿Por qué esforzarse si no tiene para que? Si él puede levantar sus manos y usted le pondrá su camisa, ¿Por qué él se va a molestar en hacerlo por sí mismo? Esto es lo que se llama aprender a ser un desamparado. Si yo le muestro a usted los duros momentos por los que estoy pasando y usted viene a ayudarme, yo no tendré que hacer nada. Yo hice lo mismo con mi madre para deshacerme del pepino. Yo removí el pepino en vez de la maleza. Es la naturaleza humana.
Más temprano o más tarde usted tendrá que cortar la ayuda. No estoy en contra del bienestar. Tal vez debería haber un límite de tiempo. Eso haría que la gente hiciera algo para mejorar por si misma. Todos caemos en momentos difíciles y necesitamos de una mano. Pero hay una porción tremenda de programas estatales niñeros y hay personas allí afuera diciéndole a usted cómo jugar al gobierno y conseguir su porcentaje “justo”. ¿Y para aumentar las ayudas gubernamentales e incluir 150% de pobreza e incluir que el gobierno maneje el cuidado medico? Yo no pienso eso. Deberíamos recortar la intervención del gobierno. Necesitamos otro Herbert Hoover ahora.
Fuente: A Basic History of the United States, Volumenes 1-5, por Clarence B. Carson, derechos de autor American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, Julio 1994
Nota agregada en marzo… la reforma del cuidado de salud ha pasado, firmada por Obama, y él está usando el dinero de la gente americana. Hay derechos para los americanos que hacen un 400% de pobreza. Ellos están penalizando a la juventud haciendo que todos los préstamos estudiantiles vayan a través del gobierno. Que cántaro. Y se supone que las condiciones pre-existentes de los ninos hasta los 26 deben cubrirse inmediatamente, pero olvidaron ponerlo en la propuesta. El representante Stupak excavó en una lengua anti-abortista, basado en un orden ejecutivo, el cual no admite ser digno del papel en el que fue escrito. Obama ha hecho pactos, intimidando congresistas, doblando brazos, para conseguir que esta reforma pase cuando en el pasado él había admitido que si la reforma al cuidado medico pasaba con menos del 60% no podría gobernar una nación. Entonces ¿Qué es lo que pretende? Hay un 76% de los Estados Unidos en contra de la reforma pero él de todas maneras esta forzandonos a aceptarla sin escuchar nuestro clamor. El quiere una revolución, así podra declarar una ley marcial y suspender las elecciones y declararse así mismo como un dictador. Eduquese usted mismo. Hay radicales de los 60-70s quienes ya hubieran salido a las calles a quemar cosas como muestra de protesta. Ellos no se explican por qué nosotros no lo hemos hecho.
Yo digo que empecemos a usar camisas desteñidas y hacer mofa de ellos. Regresemos a la charla maravillosa, usemos nuestros cabellos largos y las colas de caballo y empecemos a usar señales de paz. Paz…maravillosa…extraña…
Lori Ann Smith
Luchando por la libertad hasta mi ultimo aliento.
Oren por la paz
Translated by Sandra Davila.
http://loriann12.blogspot.com
(PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO REPRINT FOR NON-PROFIT AS LONG AS MY NAME REMAINS WITH THIS PUBLICATION.)
I have fallen behind on resending this out. I know if you decided to explore my site, it's there, but I like it to be on the main page at least once a month. Please help me get this out to our friends who still think best in their native language. The Left is doing their job of slaughtering history, let's do our job of getting the real history of the United States out, and expose the progressives and their agenda. They only want the vote, they don't care about the minorities or down-trodden.
(NOTE: This is a reprint of my Socialists in History, in Spanish, translated by a dear friend of mine from Columbia, who is here LEGALLY.)
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.)
Health care experience
I actually had a positive experience with Medicaid so to be fair, I wanted to share it.
My 22 year old son is on Medicaid due to his disabilities. He came to me with a complaint about a lump on his leg. My mom is a nurse, and I've personally dealt with a lot of "lumps." I took a look at it and it scared even me. It was sitting on what looked like a vein or artery. I called his primary doctor to see about getting him in that morning.
This particular doctor is from India, but has been here long enough to only have a slight accent. He's a gentle grey haired man that is very likable. His staff asked what city I was in, because he has clinics with varying hours in multiple cities. I told her and told her which one I went to. She said they moved a year ago. Sounds about right, my son hasn't seen his primary in about a year...why should he? He's basically healthy. She asked who is primary was, duh, and then asked who he had been seeing over the last year. I told her no one, there hasn't been a problem. After the confusion, she told me I could come in at 9:30 (they open at 9:00). Fast appointment. This office has hours during the day, but it's something like 2:00 PM until 6:00 PM. That's why I've been putting of his fasting labs. Who wants to fast until 2PM?
So, the doctor did his exam. I also had my very hyperactive 13 year old with me, and he had the doctor really distracted. He said it was probably just a fatty cyst that got infected, and it would need to be drained. He was about to take us into another room to do just that, when I asked about the possibility of it being on a vein. He looked again, and actually agreed with me. He said in that case, it would be too dangerous because if it was vascular, we'd have a lot of blood. I said, kind of like getting a heart catherization, where you have to practically sit on it to stop the flow. He said yes.
He decided to put him on antibiotics to see if it went down any. Then he asked if there was anything else we needed. I said he was supposed to get a fasting lab, but he'd already had a little MIO in his bottled water, and didn't think he could. He said that little bit wouldn't matter. So HE took him into another room and drew his blood. My son also has hypothyroidism, so those levels needed checked. While we were in the exam room, he had asked how my son was with self-care. I told him he took care of himself, and even took care of me for a while while I was sickest. My son told him he could make me eggs, and I added or pasta. That's the two things he can cook. I told him about my illness, and he asked what kind of cancer. He said his nurse was going through the same thing. I suppose that's why he is doing his own blood draws.
He also decided to send us to Baylor to get an ultrasound of the lump, to see if it actually was a cyst or vascular. I told him Baylor didn't accept Medicaid. He was stunned and said he was pretty sure they did. I told him I didn't think so (forgetting about the experience with the sprained wrist) and that they didn't take my insurance either, Tricare Prime. He said that's just wrong. They're a not-for-profit hospital and should take any and all insurance. His office lady heard us and came in to ask if he needed anything. He explained he wanted an ultrasound. She said they usually use this one company (I won't say which) and that they had a mobile unit that would come to our house. This would be SO convenient. I have epilepsy and can't really drive where I've never been (especially with 2 chatter boxes distracting me) without risk of a seizure. All I need is to have my driving revoked for 6 months.
So, they are supposed to call tomorrow or Tuesday to set up a time to come out and ultrasound his leg. If I hadn't had so many problems with Tricare Prime (also a government health care plan) or Medicaid itself, I would almost have hope. The advantage here is this doctor has been taught in India or Great Brittain and is used to this. Our Doctors are in it for the money and won't appreciate having to write off so much. Maybe our Doctors have just gotten spoiled by their association with big Pharma and the AMA and only get in the profession in order to make sure their kids get a good education. Doctors from other countries don't expect to get a big paycheck, so they go into it to heal people.
My 22 year old son is on Medicaid due to his disabilities. He came to me with a complaint about a lump on his leg. My mom is a nurse, and I've personally dealt with a lot of "lumps." I took a look at it and it scared even me. It was sitting on what looked like a vein or artery. I called his primary doctor to see about getting him in that morning.
This particular doctor is from India, but has been here long enough to only have a slight accent. He's a gentle grey haired man that is very likable. His staff asked what city I was in, because he has clinics with varying hours in multiple cities. I told her and told her which one I went to. She said they moved a year ago. Sounds about right, my son hasn't seen his primary in about a year...why should he? He's basically healthy. She asked who is primary was, duh, and then asked who he had been seeing over the last year. I told her no one, there hasn't been a problem. After the confusion, she told me I could come in at 9:30 (they open at 9:00). Fast appointment. This office has hours during the day, but it's something like 2:00 PM until 6:00 PM. That's why I've been putting of his fasting labs. Who wants to fast until 2PM?
So, the doctor did his exam. I also had my very hyperactive 13 year old with me, and he had the doctor really distracted. He said it was probably just a fatty cyst that got infected, and it would need to be drained. He was about to take us into another room to do just that, when I asked about the possibility of it being on a vein. He looked again, and actually agreed with me. He said in that case, it would be too dangerous because if it was vascular, we'd have a lot of blood. I said, kind of like getting a heart catherization, where you have to practically sit on it to stop the flow. He said yes.
He decided to put him on antibiotics to see if it went down any. Then he asked if there was anything else we needed. I said he was supposed to get a fasting lab, but he'd already had a little MIO in his bottled water, and didn't think he could. He said that little bit wouldn't matter. So HE took him into another room and drew his blood. My son also has hypothyroidism, so those levels needed checked. While we were in the exam room, he had asked how my son was with self-care. I told him he took care of himself, and even took care of me for a while while I was sickest. My son told him he could make me eggs, and I added or pasta. That's the two things he can cook. I told him about my illness, and he asked what kind of cancer. He said his nurse was going through the same thing. I suppose that's why he is doing his own blood draws.
He also decided to send us to Baylor to get an ultrasound of the lump, to see if it actually was a cyst or vascular. I told him Baylor didn't accept Medicaid. He was stunned and said he was pretty sure they did. I told him I didn't think so (forgetting about the experience with the sprained wrist) and that they didn't take my insurance either, Tricare Prime. He said that's just wrong. They're a not-for-profit hospital and should take any and all insurance. His office lady heard us and came in to ask if he needed anything. He explained he wanted an ultrasound. She said they usually use this one company (I won't say which) and that they had a mobile unit that would come to our house. This would be SO convenient. I have epilepsy and can't really drive where I've never been (especially with 2 chatter boxes distracting me) without risk of a seizure. All I need is to have my driving revoked for 6 months.
So, they are supposed to call tomorrow or Tuesday to set up a time to come out and ultrasound his leg. If I hadn't had so many problems with Tricare Prime (also a government health care plan) or Medicaid itself, I would almost have hope. The advantage here is this doctor has been taught in India or Great Brittain and is used to this. Our Doctors are in it for the money and won't appreciate having to write off so much. Maybe our Doctors have just gotten spoiled by their association with big Pharma and the AMA and only get in the profession in order to make sure their kids get a good education. Doctors from other countries don't expect to get a big paycheck, so they go into it to heal people.
Friday, August 3, 2012
A Great Awakening
Like so many people these days, I judge the world around me by the people I know. My world is not really that large. I know my parents (of course - well, I guess not all do); I have the people I grew up with (some of which I'm still in contact with), I have a few friends from the navy that I keep up with, my extended family, church family, a few neighbors that I know, etc. I judge the situation of the world based on conversations with them. In some respects, I consider myself lucky. I have friends in all parts of the country. One high school friend now lives in Maryland, another near St. Louis, I have friends in Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, New Mexico, really all over.
I've said before that I was raised a Democrat. My last time to vote Democrat was 1984, and I think I voted for Dukakis. But then I joined the Navy, and from every election on, I voted Republican. My mother accused my husband of "turning" me. His whole family is conservative and registered Republicans. When I got baptised in a Baptist Church, after being raised Methodist, my dad just said at least they're both evangelical sects. My dad hasn't been in a Methodist church since the early 70's, back when they WERE an evangelical sect. He doesn't know they have women preachers as well as gay ones.
But, now I know there is a great awakening among the masses. I don't mean religion, either. As a Protestant, I was raised to believe you didn't get mad, you didn't scream, you only had "Holy anger" when someone made fun of Jesus, but you were basically a wimp about it. You know, turn the other cheek and all that rot. But I see a lot of people standing up for what they believe now. They're not just standing up for religion and faith, they're standing up for their rights. They're waking up.
I think that's the problem with the far left. We conservatives have just been too busy letting government run itself while we made a living and raised our families. We are far too trusting. We trusted the Government to run itself like it has for over 235 years. We trusted the public school to actually teach our children the truth and actual historic events without spin. We trusted the medical community to have our health as it's number one priority. We were wrong and a lot of people are realizing that. Maybe it's because the left are all academia or jobless and have more time to plan and think about these things.
Like I said, my parents were Democrats. I say were, because they claim to be Independent with this administration. And it's not because he's black. My mom is a retired nurse. When the health care bill first started being touted as the best thing since sliced bread, I started sending mom actual quotes from the bill. That's what got me off my armchair and into politics. I started writing blogs, and sending them to her. She was totally against government health care.
Recently, I had a conversation with my mom. The subject turned to high blood pressure (my husband is having problems with that). I told her that I stopped my blood pressure pills on my own back June 1st when we sold our second house (no we're not rich and had a vacation home - we owned half a much bigger house with my in-laws who have been living in it since we moved out 3 and a half years ago - that's 3 and a half years of 2 mortgages). My blood pressure runs around 124/78 now. I expected the lecture (yes I get those even at 48) about how I shouldn't try to treat myself. Instead she said she thinks all these meds are just a way for companies to make money and doctors to keep you coming back. I wedged my foot into that door and went on: A doctor on Fox said that high blood pressure is a way of the body solving a problem: clogged arteries. But arteries aren't clogged with cholesterol because our body makes too much. Our body makes more because it's not getting where it needs to go. Our arteries are clogged because they get inflamed. Both are ways of the body repairing something, not something to just blindly fix.
For my mom, a nurse who was brainwashed by the AMA to understand that, is monumental. I talked politics with her a while back. It was right after the Texas primaries. I told her I didn't vote for Romney, mostly because they had him already winning and I'm from Missouri...don't shove something down my throat. It doesn't sit well. You heard the saying, stubborn as a Missouri mule? That's me. I voted for Santorum. But I told her now that he has the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. She asked me to imagine how she feels, having to cross that line and vote for a Republican for the first time in her life.
Since most people's area of influence can be seen as a microcosm of the world, I take that as a good sign. I'm actually in the real world, not like Obama who only knows academic type people. I think America is facing it's first Great Awakening since 1776. We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to this fight for freedom. Come and take it, libs.
I've said before that I was raised a Democrat. My last time to vote Democrat was 1984, and I think I voted for Dukakis. But then I joined the Navy, and from every election on, I voted Republican. My mother accused my husband of "turning" me. His whole family is conservative and registered Republicans. When I got baptised in a Baptist Church, after being raised Methodist, my dad just said at least they're both evangelical sects. My dad hasn't been in a Methodist church since the early 70's, back when they WERE an evangelical sect. He doesn't know they have women preachers as well as gay ones.
But, now I know there is a great awakening among the masses. I don't mean religion, either. As a Protestant, I was raised to believe you didn't get mad, you didn't scream, you only had "Holy anger" when someone made fun of Jesus, but you were basically a wimp about it. You know, turn the other cheek and all that rot. But I see a lot of people standing up for what they believe now. They're not just standing up for religion and faith, they're standing up for their rights. They're waking up.
I think that's the problem with the far left. We conservatives have just been too busy letting government run itself while we made a living and raised our families. We are far too trusting. We trusted the Government to run itself like it has for over 235 years. We trusted the public school to actually teach our children the truth and actual historic events without spin. We trusted the medical community to have our health as it's number one priority. We were wrong and a lot of people are realizing that. Maybe it's because the left are all academia or jobless and have more time to plan and think about these things.
Like I said, my parents were Democrats. I say were, because they claim to be Independent with this administration. And it's not because he's black. My mom is a retired nurse. When the health care bill first started being touted as the best thing since sliced bread, I started sending mom actual quotes from the bill. That's what got me off my armchair and into politics. I started writing blogs, and sending them to her. She was totally against government health care.
Recently, I had a conversation with my mom. The subject turned to high blood pressure (my husband is having problems with that). I told her that I stopped my blood pressure pills on my own back June 1st when we sold our second house (no we're not rich and had a vacation home - we owned half a much bigger house with my in-laws who have been living in it since we moved out 3 and a half years ago - that's 3 and a half years of 2 mortgages). My blood pressure runs around 124/78 now. I expected the lecture (yes I get those even at 48) about how I shouldn't try to treat myself. Instead she said she thinks all these meds are just a way for companies to make money and doctors to keep you coming back. I wedged my foot into that door and went on: A doctor on Fox said that high blood pressure is a way of the body solving a problem: clogged arteries. But arteries aren't clogged with cholesterol because our body makes too much. Our body makes more because it's not getting where it needs to go. Our arteries are clogged because they get inflamed. Both are ways of the body repairing something, not something to just blindly fix.
For my mom, a nurse who was brainwashed by the AMA to understand that, is monumental. I talked politics with her a while back. It was right after the Texas primaries. I told her I didn't vote for Romney, mostly because they had him already winning and I'm from Missouri...don't shove something down my throat. It doesn't sit well. You heard the saying, stubborn as a Missouri mule? That's me. I voted for Santorum. But I told her now that he has the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. She asked me to imagine how she feels, having to cross that line and vote for a Republican for the first time in her life.
Since most people's area of influence can be seen as a microcosm of the world, I take that as a good sign. I'm actually in the real world, not like Obama who only knows academic type people. I think America is facing it's first Great Awakening since 1776. We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to this fight for freedom. Come and take it, libs.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Voting With Your Dollars
I had to weigh in on this, even though a lot of people have already.
I remember back before I got "political" which means prior to 2008. I remember hearing a Christian (can't remember who, maybe Dodson?) say that you can't boycott EVERY single thing that appears to not have Christian values. If I did that, from what I understand, I'd never shop Amazon.com again, never to to JCPenny's, and wouldn't patronize a lot of places. We didn't start this fight. I've done research and the LGBT community only makes up about 7% of our population. But they have good propaganda, don't they? They make it sound like they are so deprived because they don't have the same rights as we heterosexuals do. I beg to differ.
First of all, they are free to marry whom ever they want of the opposite sex. If they choose a lover or life mate that is of the same sex, they have the same rights as people who chose not to get married. Those who are in a heterosexual relationship, but choose not to marry, don't get the benefits of marriage either. There are no marital rights given to "significant others." The LGBT community doesn't want equal rights under the law, they want special rights under the law. They want the law to bend to their whims. Until we actually do become Sodom or Gomorrah, the heterosexuals actually do outnumber the LGBT community. What happened to their "Democracy?" Democracy means that the majority rule. WE ARE THE MAJORITY. But now they want to change the rules, since it isn't to their benefit.
But, first let me clarify. We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. That means if you, the LGBT community, want equal rights under the law, or even your special rights, you have to elect members to represent you in Congress that share your views. That's how things work in this country. That's why the T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) Party has done so well. And that's why the LGBT community slanders it so badly. They know they don't have the numbers to change anything.
They tried aligning themselves with the radicals and still their numbers don't add up to a majority. I have to ask them this question: you do realize how Muslims feel about you, don't you? You align yourselves with them in an attempt to overthrow what you see as a "Christian" government, but do you realize what Islam is? Islam is a TRUE Theocracy. Their religion and government can not be separated. To disobey a law is to disobey Allah or Muhammad. Our God gave us "commandments," but he didn't say if you don't obey them, "I kill you!" He did say you'll suffer the consequences.
And I find it amazing how people who DON'T want the Bible used as the law of the land, will sure use it out of context to prove their points. But don't the Muslims get mad when we quote the Qu'aran? You have to realize that the Jewish leaders got power-hungry, too, so they added laws to the Bible. God didn't give the Ten Commandments with a list of punishments, stoning if you catch a WOMAN in the act of adultery, etc. He just said follow my laws and you will have a long life. Man added those punishments. Man is not perfect. Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to complete it. We no longer live under the law. Now, when we get saved and the Holy Spirit inhabits us, we WANT to do right. Does that mean we always do? No. We are still human.
But back to the boycott of business that don't agree with us. Here in America (at least at the writing of this blog) we have the freedom to say what ever we want. I spent 4 years in the Navy and my husband spent 20 years in the Navy to give you the right to burn our flag if you want to. We did our time so that you can boycott business that you don't agree with...vote with your money. You love it when it goes your way, or you think it does. Just like when the far left called for businesses to pull their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show. Lots did. Some wanted to come back after the publicity died down. Rush wouldn't let them. Why? Because he had lots in the wings just waiting for an opportunity to advertise with him. Your little boycotts don't work nearly as well as ours because there are more of us than of you.
And now to revisit my previous statement about the LGBT community aligning with the Islamists. Do you realize that in Shari'a compliant countries they kill homosexuals? They kill men who walk too close to their fiance's. The dowry they pay for their wife is just for her sexual parts. They can beat her as long as they don't "ruin" her. How's that sit with the women's libbers? Oh, they must think it can't happen here, so it's safe to join with them just to bring down this country. Do you really think, far left, that you outnumber the Muslims? If this country falls, that's who will swoop in and take over. Then try getting equal treatment under the law, or trying to say the government needs to separate church and state. And by aligning with the communists, who want to share the wealth, which attracts all the n'er do goods, you're bringing your own downfall, too. Communists don't believe in money for nothing. You think even married people will get a tax break and benefits if the Communists get in? In China, they have no food stamps, no welfare, no unemployment insurance. They give you either a fishing net or a bamboo starter so you can make your own way by WORKING for it. No sitting at home and doing nothing because you hurt your back. If you decide to do nothing, you better have rich family because that's who will be providing for you.
So, to all these alliances that go against our Constitution, I have this to say: We who want to go BACK to the constitution outnumber you. The only way this won't be reflected in the polls is if there is fraud. You can see that from the Chik-Fil-A appreciation day.
I remember back before I got "political" which means prior to 2008. I remember hearing a Christian (can't remember who, maybe Dodson?) say that you can't boycott EVERY single thing that appears to not have Christian values. If I did that, from what I understand, I'd never shop Amazon.com again, never to to JCPenny's, and wouldn't patronize a lot of places. We didn't start this fight. I've done research and the LGBT community only makes up about 7% of our population. But they have good propaganda, don't they? They make it sound like they are so deprived because they don't have the same rights as we heterosexuals do. I beg to differ.
First of all, they are free to marry whom ever they want of the opposite sex. If they choose a lover or life mate that is of the same sex, they have the same rights as people who chose not to get married. Those who are in a heterosexual relationship, but choose not to marry, don't get the benefits of marriage either. There are no marital rights given to "significant others." The LGBT community doesn't want equal rights under the law, they want special rights under the law. They want the law to bend to their whims. Until we actually do become Sodom or Gomorrah, the heterosexuals actually do outnumber the LGBT community. What happened to their "Democracy?" Democracy means that the majority rule. WE ARE THE MAJORITY. But now they want to change the rules, since it isn't to their benefit.
But, first let me clarify. We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. That means if you, the LGBT community, want equal rights under the law, or even your special rights, you have to elect members to represent you in Congress that share your views. That's how things work in this country. That's why the T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) Party has done so well. And that's why the LGBT community slanders it so badly. They know they don't have the numbers to change anything.
They tried aligning themselves with the radicals and still their numbers don't add up to a majority. I have to ask them this question: you do realize how Muslims feel about you, don't you? You align yourselves with them in an attempt to overthrow what you see as a "Christian" government, but do you realize what Islam is? Islam is a TRUE Theocracy. Their religion and government can not be separated. To disobey a law is to disobey Allah or Muhammad. Our God gave us "commandments," but he didn't say if you don't obey them, "I kill you!" He did say you'll suffer the consequences.
And I find it amazing how people who DON'T want the Bible used as the law of the land, will sure use it out of context to prove their points. But don't the Muslims get mad when we quote the Qu'aran? You have to realize that the Jewish leaders got power-hungry, too, so they added laws to the Bible. God didn't give the Ten Commandments with a list of punishments, stoning if you catch a WOMAN in the act of adultery, etc. He just said follow my laws and you will have a long life. Man added those punishments. Man is not perfect. Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to complete it. We no longer live under the law. Now, when we get saved and the Holy Spirit inhabits us, we WANT to do right. Does that mean we always do? No. We are still human.
But back to the boycott of business that don't agree with us. Here in America (at least at the writing of this blog) we have the freedom to say what ever we want. I spent 4 years in the Navy and my husband spent 20 years in the Navy to give you the right to burn our flag if you want to. We did our time so that you can boycott business that you don't agree with...vote with your money. You love it when it goes your way, or you think it does. Just like when the far left called for businesses to pull their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show. Lots did. Some wanted to come back after the publicity died down. Rush wouldn't let them. Why? Because he had lots in the wings just waiting for an opportunity to advertise with him. Your little boycotts don't work nearly as well as ours because there are more of us than of you.
And now to revisit my previous statement about the LGBT community aligning with the Islamists. Do you realize that in Shari'a compliant countries they kill homosexuals? They kill men who walk too close to their fiance's. The dowry they pay for their wife is just for her sexual parts. They can beat her as long as they don't "ruin" her. How's that sit with the women's libbers? Oh, they must think it can't happen here, so it's safe to join with them just to bring down this country. Do you really think, far left, that you outnumber the Muslims? If this country falls, that's who will swoop in and take over. Then try getting equal treatment under the law, or trying to say the government needs to separate church and state. And by aligning with the communists, who want to share the wealth, which attracts all the n'er do goods, you're bringing your own downfall, too. Communists don't believe in money for nothing. You think even married people will get a tax break and benefits if the Communists get in? In China, they have no food stamps, no welfare, no unemployment insurance. They give you either a fishing net or a bamboo starter so you can make your own way by WORKING for it. No sitting at home and doing nothing because you hurt your back. If you decide to do nothing, you better have rich family because that's who will be providing for you.
So, to all these alliances that go against our Constitution, I have this to say: We who want to go BACK to the constitution outnumber you. The only way this won't be reflected in the polls is if there is fraud. You can see that from the Chik-Fil-A appreciation day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)