I've been hacked

Well, I can't access my blog right now, but I can post. I've experience my first hacking....

Every time I try to access my own blog, I get redirected to http://deplayer.net/ptp.html with someone talking a foreign language in the background. I don't know if everyone is having the same problem, but I have to assume so. I'm trying to solve it, but since I have no followers at the moment, no one will know about it.

Now, my question is, did this happen because I'm being affective? Or is it a coincidence? I do know that I noticed that yesterday I got my FIRST comment on a blog. Of course it wasn't a political blog, it was one of my religious ones, and it wasn't one I wrote. I looked up the guy who commented and he was an atheist. So he didn't care anything about what I write, but that I'm a Christian and he happens to bash Christians, because he doesn't like God. You know it takes more faith to be an atheist that to be a Christian? I have to wonder if he's the one who attacked me? Seems an awful coincidence, to happen at this time. But that's OK.

I can post anyway. Satan can't keep me down. You see, I woke up this morning, going to post my dream I had, so maybe that dream had significance, and I SHOULD post it after all.

Here's my dream: It started out, I was in my yard. It was obviously a generic yard, because it wasn't MY yard. I had a pile of rubble that was almost as high as me, and it was shaking. I thought to myself, that's peculiar. I don't remember thinking it might be an earthquake or anything, just wondering why it would be trying to fly away like that. Then a government official came into my yard. Again, I don't remember thinking it odd that he came onto my property without me asking him to, or being mad that he did. He asked what I was doing, and why my stuff was doing that. I said I honestly didn't know. Then I leaned around my shed, which is odd, because I don't own a shed, and looked at the sky and HOLY COW! The whole sky was about to erupt into a tornado! It was black and ugly and very threatening and you could see the funnel cloud in the distance coming straight for us! I told the government man, "There's a tornado coming straight for us!" He got on his radio and called it in. Another oddity, because we know in the current environment, the government doesn't listen to the average American. Then I headed to the house. As I'm walking to the house, my youngest son, Derek, is walking out. I scream all 3 of his names, which I am obviously not going to post on this blog, and to a child that should signal that you are in BIG TROUBLE! He ignored me and continued on his bee line straight towards the tornado! I could feel my heart jump into my throat! I screamed all 3 names again, with the panic rising! I just knew I was going to have to go INTO THAT TORNADO and get him out. I could see his molecules disappearing one by one into the tornado as I literally had to make my feet move towards him. I didn't want to go, BUT IT WAS MY CHILD disappearing into that tornado. I had no choice. I had to go.

I woke up with the panic still in my heart. I would have hated to take my blood pressure at that point. I woke up at 3:38 A.M. and never really got back to sleep. It's gonna be a long day. I almost woke up my son and slapped him for not listening to me, it was so real.

I have studied a little bit of Carl Jung. I know there is no such thing as a prescient dream, so I don't fear for his life or anything. I also know that most dreams are what is weighing heavy on your mind. I am a mother, but I am also a veteran. What weighs most on my mind right now is my country, and my children's future. My subconscious obviously just combined them. Perhaps I feel as if there is hope in some of our officials listening to us (the government man who called in the tornado). But maybe Derek represented the American people who are still asleep, and possibly sleep walking towards the doom that this administration will put us in if this health care bill passes.

Everyone is thinking, "Oh, don't worry, we'll just reverse it with the next vote." Oh, really? Y'all think it will be that easy? Obama is talking about taking over 1/6th of the economy. He's not only talking about that, but when everyone gets on Medicare, and Medicaid, it will COLLAPSE the economy. And, he's talking about taking over your care, medically, and some bureaucrat deciding who gets care. And if you think that isn't already happening, ask my dad. He had to fight to get care for prostate cancer. People like Obama have no problem walking into that tornado for their ideals. If it will progress their beliefs, they'll kill themselves, politically, physically, whatever it takes. In my dream, I had to MAKE my feet go, only because my child was being destroyed. Don't mess with a mother tiger when her young is in danger....but I was scared into fight or flight. Does Obama look scared? No, he's mad that the Democrats aren't sacrificing themselves and their careers like he is for "the cause."

Obama wasn't raised in America by patriotic Democrats. He was raised in first, Hawaii, then Indonesia. I lived in Hawaii for 4 years on a Navy base. They aren't very American-friendly. They've wanted their independence from America for a very long time. I've read a lot of articles that say that his mother was a Marxist, and didn't have American-friendly values. And now he's President of the United States. He's in a position to reset our government into what he was raised it should be. How very convenient. His mother would be so proud.

So, he doesn't run into that tornado to save American lives, does he? See how quickly he acted to make the decision about our troops? And then didn't give HIS general what he asked for, not even close. He gave him LESS than the minimum he asked for. He didn't even give him the minimum, let alone a compromise. Your general says we need 40,000 to 60,000 troops, and you give him 30,000? That means you don't care if win or not. You want America seen as weak.

I will go into the fray, not because I'm brave, but because I love my country. I fight, not because I'm brave, but because no one else will go. I fight, not because I'm brave, but because my children deserve a free country. When your nation calls you, will you go? Obama calls for useful idiots, because he doesn't care about who dies, even politically. I would die for freedom, but not as a useful idiot for Marxism. I will not reset the economy into oblivion.

We have to defeat this health care bill. It is just a hand out to get you used to being hand fed benefits. Can't you see the riots when the Republicans get in office and have to take free stuff away? Don't get used to any more "benefits." And I'm not going to be the pot calling the kettle black. As soon as my house sells, or as soon as I can convince my MIL to take a reverse mortgage and buy us out of our mortgage on the other house, we'll give up my son's SSI check. I fully understand not being able to give up benefits. That's what Obama is banking on. Get 'em hooked and it will collapse the economy and he can be the savior with Marxism. You think you can overthrow Marxism and bring back a Republic? Not likely.

Lori Ann Smith
I don't want my grandchildren asking me, grandma, why didn't you fight harder?

Are We Being Taken over By Modern Day Tories?

I'm at my one month anniversary for setting up my blog. I thought I'd talk a little about my mission. First, how I chose the name for my blog. While I was doing my research, I stumbled across a plan of Barack Obama to start a corps of translators that had as their native language one of 5 or 6 Arab regions of Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't remember off hand what they are, but he didn't mention requiring them to be American citizens or that he cared what their religion was. That scared me. Where would their loyalties lie? He wanted to call this the America's Voice Corps. I guess he would have called it the corpse, but I digress. I later discovered that there is such a "corps," but they're calling it 09 LIMA.

At the time, another patriotic site I was on was considering changing their name. I almost suggested that name for their site, but was unsure if they would risk copy right infringements and taking on the President. I couldn't suggest they do something I wasn't sure I could do. Then, I saw some one's post with their own blogspot address, and I got my own blog. The natural thing to do was name it this. I couldn't find anything named America's Voice Corps on the Internet. I subtitled it Standing on the Ramparts in honor of Glenn Beck. He made a comment on one of his shows that verbalized exactly how I felt, and still feel. I feel that, since I see this coming, I'm responsible, with the penalty being my very soul, to tell as many people as I can. Whether you listen or not is not my responsibility. I'm telling what I discover to be true.

I may make mistakes. There are people posting lies and half truths intentionally to lead others astray. I have to wonder why would someone do that? My parents valued honesty. When I was growing up, if I made a mistake, my punishment was much less if I came clean right away. If I broke something on accident and came and told, I usually didn't get in trouble beyond natural consequences....like having to pay for it. I didn't get a spanking or grounded. If I lied about it or tried to hide it, I got in big trouble. Why tell the truth if the punishment is going to be the same? That's being a tyrant. Does that sound like the liberals? They must have been raised by tyrants.

There are people intentionally trying to make us look like conspiracy theorists so the truth won't be believed. But the truth is out there. This administration didn't study Saul Alynsky to study the enemy. They admire him and have adopted his tactics. They are on the same wave length, to use 70's terminology.

So, my mission is not really to convince any liberals to change their minds. That's never going to happen. They are rabid any way. And the true far left liberals are only 20% of the country. Did you know that fascism is really far left? It's socialism. The far left has been trying to re-define it for years. They're racist so people who are racist pick up on that one fact and ignore all the other socialist policies. The far left consider them useful idiots. They'll get rid of them when they've served their purpose - overthrowing the current form of government. By the way: We have a Republic, not a Democracy. Otherwise, WE THE PEOPLE would have to vote on every single bill that comes up before Congress, and not our elected officials. That's another thing they've been trying to brainwash us with.

I want to wake up those who haven't formed an opinion yet, or don't think we're in danger of falling. You don't hear much about Russia any more, do you? I remember when Russia was a threat to us. I tracked submarines during the cold war. You would be amazed how close they came to our National waters. During the cold war (1984-1988 for me) they played cat and mouse games frequently. We had one time that I remember quite well. The first person to identify a Russian submarine contact ever got a night off. I was stationed in Bermuda, so that meant that this submarine would have to sneak past Keflavik, Iceland, past Brawdy, Wales, past Norfolk, Virginia, down to Bermuda without getting detected by any land units or any of our submarines. (Don't worry about the security of this, I signed a contract that I wouldn't discuss my job for 10 years and it's been 21 years. I guess under the Freedom of Information act, I'm OK as long as I don't divulge actual secret information, which for the sake of my country, I wouldn't do anyway.)

But, one night, my friend picked up a Russian submarine. We not only knew it was a Russian submarine, but WHICH one, because it had a bent prop, giving a very unique signature. For obvious reasons, I won't tell which one. We only picked it up because a U.S. Submarine picked it up and was chasing it out of the area. When we reported it, Washington and Norfolk told us there were NO CONTACTS in our area. That's because the US Submarine was going faster than they tell us it can go. I had a secret clearance, not a top secret. We were so convinced, our supervisors gave her the night off anyway. Remind me some day to tell you the real story of the submarine that sunk off the coast of Bermuda....the one Dan Rather reported on? Yea, right.

That story, to tell you this: Russia used to be a force to be reckoned with 26 years ago, then she fell apart. Are we headed down the same path as Russia? There are those in our government who want to turn us into Europe. We fought 233 years ago to separate from Europe. Do we have to do it again? Have we been taken over from the inside by Tories? (Tory: an American upholding the cause of the British Crown against the supporters of colonial independence during the American Revolution.)

Lori Ann Smith
I will continue to fight to separate us from Europe. We are America, not Europe.

Forced Unionization

Congratulations to John Stossel for his investigative reporting. Who would believe this could happen in the United States of America? Forced Unionization? This is unbelievable and needs to go viral. They have no benefits, and they still have to pay. They don't have the choice of paying or not.

Are we living in 1600 England? What happened to no taxation without representation? And I think Michigan needs to look more closely at Republican Dave Camp....is he a RINO? He seems to be closely aligned with all the Democrats who received pay off money. And I'm just an average American, but it seems like pay off money to me. When a union consists of approximately 40,000 members and only 6,000 voted to actually HAVE the union in the first place? That's taxation without representation. Since when does 15% of a Union get to determine who is represented? And who gets to determine who joins a union? What if someone decides to unionize house wives? Will I be forced to give up part of my husband's pay to pay union dues? I get an "allowance" to do with what I wish - is that in jeopardy? Will I be forced into a union? Is all of America going to be unionized? Will they figure out a way to unionize everyone? They already ask on your tax return what your job is....since when do they have the right to such personal information? And we just roll over and give it to them.

I have a novel idea....let's have a vote across America, and see if we actually NEED unions. If the vote comes up that we DON'T need unions, I say we disband all the unions, whether the unions want it or not. If they can force a union on people having day cares in their own homes, then what's to say we can't force them to shut down the unions? They would be forced to refund all the money back to the people. That would stimulate the economy, giving the people back their money.

And that brings me to another subject. I'm going to stop giving any of my personal information on my tax returns. They don't need to know what my husband's job title is. They just need to know the name of his employer because he signs his checks. He could be toilet fixer or top executive for all they care. And what do they care that I'm a stay home mom? Maybe I should put down blogger this year? That would throw them for a loop. Freelance blogger (non-profit), crafter, taxi-driver for my kids, clean houses (1 client), meal preparer (1 client, also non-profit), Sunday school teacher for bed-babies (not much prep work...a lot of holding and love involved).

Is that civil disobedience?

Where Has Decency and Concern Gone?

Where has decency and concern for our fellow man gone? I went to the grocery store today. When I got done, I had a cart full. It seems everyone wanted to check out at the same time. The man who got in line behind me only had one of those grab it baskets. I asked him if he'd like to go ahead of me. After looking at me like I'd sprouted 2 more heads, he answered yes. Then he said he'd just left isle 9, because he'd waited FOREVER! Isle 9 was supposed to be for 20 or less items but it seems they put the slowest checker there.

We didn't do much small talk during the wait for his turn, because I started to put my items on the belt. He did look for the little divider for me, but I had my little purple bags, and he had all his stuff in his basket, so I wasn't concerned the checker would get our items confused. When he was done, he stopped, said, "God bless you and you have a nice day!" Wow, guess I shocked him.

That's what I told the checker because she looked at me a bit confused. I looked at her and she had that questioning look on her face, like I don't really have a right to ask, but I'm dying to know. We had nothing in common. He was Oriental and I'm very white. He was, I think, about my age, but I'm terrible with ages. I said, "I think I shocked him. I let him go ahead of me."

While I was checking out, after I had scanned my credit card, there was another lady just walking by who tripped. She was a frail little Japanese woman who couldn't have weighed any more than 98 pounds. She was walking past the ice machine, where they have the rubber mats. She apparently tripped over the mat. I watched for a couple seconds and no one came to her. I left my isle, wallet in hand and went to her to help her up. At first I just offered my hand to let her stabblize, but she actually needed me to lift her up. I asked her if she was alright, but she was so shocked that someone came to help her, all she could say was, in broken English, "I say a blessing for you tonight."

These two examples were so shocked that I would be nice to them, when I live in the south where hospitality is supposed to be common, that they were taken a back at first. Where have we gotten America? I know I'm old (being all of 46), but where have our manners gone? In my day, if I hadn't gone to help that lady, my mom would have twisted my ear. If I hadn't held the door for someone who looked like they could be my grandparents, I would have been shamed when I got home. Not in public mind you, and not screamed at, but I would have felt it. It was just something you DID, you know? Now, everyone is worried about getting out first, why should they let someone ELSE go FIRST?

I have been the recipient of random acts of kindness, but I have to admit usually it's from the older generation. Or from someone flirting with me. Maybe we need to get a random acts of kindness movement going. And not from someone who is going to give someone money for doing it. Sometimes one's only reward is received on the other side of heaven.

Lori Ann Smith

One Mom Stands against Al Awda in San Diego County

This was posted on Asamom.org and I have permission from the original poster to post it here. She would love for it to go viral, so I'm also giving her permission to re-post it anywhere and everywhere you desire. Things like this are not supposed to happen in America. This is an explanation she gave in a comments section:

Originally, this Al Awda conference was scheduled at San Diego State University. That is the age group of the "children" Chris was referring to. She speaks this way because she has children in that age group. The Al Awda conference she attended was at the La Mesa Community Center. Before this conference took place, several of us Moms first contacted SDSU, which seemed to have kept it from there. Then we found out they were moving it to the La Mesa Community Center. We then began to email and phone the Mayor of La Mesa. His response was that they had the right to free speech and therefore could not be limited from utilizing the Community Center. When he was asked about police protection if we chose to protest this hate group, he originally declined police presence. I hope this clarifies the situation Chris was in and to whom she was talking. The children she was speaking of that were playing across the way, were younger children as the community center is adjacent to a park, a public pool, and a community golf course.

_______________

Another question put forward in comments was were they American students or foreigners on visa's, but that was said to be a question the Mayor hasn't answered. If they were foreign students, did they have the right to assemble peaceably, and if the assembly was no longer peaceable, didn't the police have an obligation to remove them?

___________________


One Mom -vs- Al Awda
Posted by Dara Dale-Bailey on February 14, 2010 at 2:24pm

This is the experience of one of my group members in San Diego County. This happened yesterday. This action was precipitated by a fight first with SDSU, then with the Mayor of La Mesa, CA. We asked for this hate group to be barred from property funded with Taxppayer dollars. Our request was refused, so was the original request for Police Protection. The Mayor said, you cannot participate in civil unreest, then ask for Police Protection. We felt it was important for this story to get out. Here is her email to me:


Today: February 13, 2010
Re: La Mesa, CA Community Center
Al Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition
Part of the International Solidarity Movement
Funders of Hamas, supporters of Hezbollah

I went to Al Awda today. I saw the devil with my own eyes. I spoke with the members from SDSU, only children, but hating America. I saw the professors who came to speak. I heard them yelling and demeaning my country. One by one, men came and yelled at me as I stood.... alone. One woman... one mother... one wife... one daughter... all 5 foot four of me - and my police stood against me - THEY TOOK MY CHAIR as I stood alone. I saw the depth of our problem, how far we have strayed. I asked my policeman, "Whom shall I trust?" I am ashamed to say, I broke down and cried. I felt afraid and I could not return to my car.

But while all this was happening, I talked to the children.... for hours. These things were but interludes, hindering my work. The students, maybe 6 in number, talked to me. They saw what happened and while they spewed evil about my beloved country, if I listened attentively, they'd listen right back at me. I was able to give one a pocket Constitution. They each admitted that they could not name five founding fathers, yet were attending college. They listened as I told them what makes America great. I told them so many things and.... it was good.
Except for the others. They were getting angry at me but, I had my rights with me and I had the Creator who gave them to me.

These students, they knew every evil taught them, they were predictable. They watched as their heros came and attacked me with lies and they knew they were lying about saying I was doing things I was not. And... it was good. We talked about it between each evil interloper who would come to yell at me hoping to intimidate or scare me into leaving. They watched as men stood inches away from me in stand-offs, demanding that I leave, "You are not welcome" they yelled. "Get out of here!" Truly, they thundered at me.

The students watched as I stood alone and told these men, each one by one, "I am not leaving, I have a right to be here. STOP TALKING TO ME AND GET AWAY FROM ME." But, I did not move. These men were angry. They hated our country. They were planning. They had a box for donations with words I'm not going to type. No cursing but, I just don't want to type them. The students did not like what they saw... no, not at all. And I used it.

Eventually, the students were ordered not to speak to me. Yet, I could still speak to them. This worked out better than I could have dreamed. I told them, "Can't you see these are angry people? Why do they hate me? Is it because my hair is blonde?" They could not answer. I used it some more. I told them, "I am sorry you aren't allowed to talk to me." They would smile. "I've never been around people before who weren't allowed to talk to me." I said, "I've been free every day of my life and I am profoundly thankful. I love my country. I am free to speak to whomever I wish to hear whatever I choose. Never unitl today, have I been with other people who were ordered not to speak to me."

Then I told them of these men's hearts. I told the students that they were so nice to me and how I enjoyed talking with them. Told them they were nice. But the adults inside, most especially two specific men, the meanest, their hearts were hardened, I told the children. We must look at our foundation and what was so good about America that men traveled from all over the world to come here. So many died. They sought freedom. America, the beacon to the world. I even got in some 5000 Year Leap material!

On the drive home my head was spinning. Our very way of life seemed so fragile. And we were doing almost nothing to stop the threats. I felt my country falling away. It seemed as if it were disintegrating while people played with their prosperity toys doing nothing to save their children's freedom. So many parents and grandparents were silent while evil flourished. The torch of liberty was in their hands yet they could not be trusted to stand and speak. They waited for someone else to fix it. That someone else was me today. But, I couldn't fix it. Not alone. Maybe a teeny tiny dent?

My world was upside down.

I remembered a quote I had read last night, "The hottest place in Hell must be reserved for those who remain nuetral in times of great moral conflict." Martin Luther King Jr. said this and we all know the dangers he faced.

Children were playing across the sidewalk only feet away. Their mothers sat unknowing of the hate that lurked across the walk.

I did not get home until 3:00 p.m. because there was no one else to do it and I felt it had to be done. Everyone at the seminars, even our own university professors will not forget me. Neither will the children. Not for some time anyway.

Maybe there was one child that learned something in those hours. Maybe one will be saved. I wanted so much to go to the other meeting today but I guess I have to trust that I was where I was supposed to be on this day because as much as today was a profoundly disturbing & heartbreaking experience for me, God has a plan.

I just wish he'd tell it to the cops. Oh, I should add that by the end, one of the cops told me that they (3) had a discussion about me and were all talking about what big _ _ _ _ I have. So that's good!

IN GOD WE TRUST,
Chris
Psalm 121

_______________

Psalm 121
Theme: We can depend upon God for help. Pilgrims must travel through lonely country to their destination; they are protected, not by anything created, but by the Creator of everything.
Author: Anonymous, some suggest Hezekiah


I lift up my eyes to the hills --
where does my help come from?
My help comes from the Lord,
the Maker of heaven and earth.

He will not let your foot slip --
he who watches over you will not slumber;
indeed he who watches over Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep.

The Lord watches over you --
the Lord is your shade at your right hand;
the sun will not harm you by day,
nor the moon by night.

The Lord will keep you from all harm --
he will watch over your life;
the Lord will watch over your coming and going
both now and forevermore.

Health Care Has Taken on a Personal Note

Well, health care has taken a personal turn. My parents, who have been Democrats all my life, and recently started correcting me and calling themselves Independent, are now firmly convinced there are death panels. I don't feel it my place to say who they voted for in the Presidential race, as that's confidential. I don't think my mom would give me permission to divulge that information to the nation, and I respect my elders. Besides, she'd kick my butt. And since I was raised not to strike my mother, I'd have to let her.

My father was diagnosed with prostate cancer a while back. He's going to be 78 years old in March. They are refusing to do surgery. He's on Medicare. My mom is a breast cancer survivor of 11 years and a retired nurse. She is pressing the issue and wanting to know WHY they won't consider surgery. They used the excuse that with his health issues, it wouldn't be wise. Health issues? My dad is in great health, except for this pesky little new issue that cropped up, called prostate cancer. He's been in a study for the past 20 years or so, that they test his prostate levels every year. His level has been 3 every year. This year it jumped to 14.6. Ya think it might need to be explored? Well, then they tested it again, and got a 4. The doctor thought something might be suspicious and did biopsies and found cancer.

My mom is not one to sit on things, she pushed things. She finally got a sort of explanation. They finally said that there are little spots all over and they would have to take the whole thing out, and they don't recommend that. She brought up my dad's dad, who had his prostate removed. They explained that when you have a prostate removed for a "going" problem, they don't actually remove the whole thing, but the middle of it. In dad's case, they would actually have to remove the WHOLE thing. Mom persisted and did finally get an appointment to see someone else besides this idiot.

I told dad, and Dad agrees with me that it's because he's on Medicare. They don't want to eat what Medicare doesn't pay. They know that Medicare won't pay for the whole thing. They're not stupid. I was on the phone with my mother, and dad is yelling in the background, "There are death panels!" I wonder what he would say if he heard me typing that he sounds just like Sarah Palin?

So, President Obama, even the loyal Democrats are waking up. Your base of voters are crumbling around you. When are you going to open your eyes? When are you going to see? How do you expect to ADD to the rolls of Medicare/Medicaid and not add to the deficit? How do you expect to not bankrupt America? How do you expect the hospitals and insurance companies to not go bankrupt? And you write in a little clause that says no cost shifting? And you think we are going to believe you when you try to say the hospitals and insurance companies are evil? You are the one who is evil. You want everyone coming to you for insurance. What then? Then, when the United States government can't afford it, you have to raise taxes. We'll be like all the other socialist countries, with a 70% tax rate on the middle class. Is that 100% for the upper class? Is that what you want, America?

I can say I did my best, I informed. My parents are awake. I guess I woke up 2 people. Maybe I should be content in that. I'll still stand on the Ramparts and inform as I feel I must. I still feel as if I must warn the Nation. God didn't tell me that anyone would listen, just to talk. I still feel like Pink Floyd: Is there anybody OUT THERE?

Lori Ann Smith
I fight for freedom, though no may listen, until I'm hoarse from the shouting.

America's Guardian Angel

America's Guardian Angel,
Battle torn and weary,
Missing a few feathers from the fight,
Kneeling in fatigue and nearly
spent.

America's Guardian Angel.
Battle torn and crying,
A wing broken from battle, not sin,
Time spent looking down, sighing,
At us.

America's Guardian Angel,
Battle torn and pleading
"Pray for me! For strength!
We must be succeeding --
For Your Children!"


Lori Ann Smith

A Look Into My Diary

I have scattered thoughts today. It's raining and the rain always makes me blue. I remember when I used to sit and knit in the rain. Now the rain brings different thoughts. America has been in a deep sleep; a sleep of a winter of inattention to governmental issues. We've let things go. Is it too late? Phrases run through my head for blogs, for research. There are just so many things to do. I feel the weight of these issues on my generations' shoulders. What if we're right? I don't care if we're wrong. I'll take the ridicule. I hope we're wrong. I want to be the crazy lady in the family.

But the more research I do, the more scared I get. And I have clung to ideals for so long that are crumbling. I had thought I was safe, on the right side of politics. I was a Republican. I became a Republican during the Reagan era. But ideals come crashing down....

Socialists are sneaky people...they masquerade as Republicans too. The previous administration has put into place the beginnings that are being built on. We thought these things were good, but didn't see how they could be corrupted in the wrong hands. We saw it in "good" hands. But were the hands good, or just slow acting? Is it just as evil to transform into a socialist nation if you do it slowly? But where are the people from the left who were screaming that Bush was bad, evil, terrible, now that Obama is doing all the same things, only faster? Where are the people who compared Bush to Hitler, when Obama is doing the same things, only faster? I am willing to apologize for not seeing in Bush the socialistic programs. I was blinded by party. Why can they not see it in their party? I admit that I was a yellow dog Republican. I voted for the "R" on the ballot. I won't make that mistake again. It's sort of like when people ask why are you a Christian? And you can't answer. I can answer now. I want small government. I want low spending. I am pro-life. I am conservative. I am pro-business. I want lower taxes. And that last one isn't just so I have more money and can buy more things. If the people have more money, everyone has more money; business has more money to invest, people have more money to spend on the economy, the economy grows. Ronald Reagan proved it.

But the left aren't screaming now about the socialist agenda. They have an agenda. They want to fundamentally change America. And watch, they will change their name when socialist becomes a dirty name. I believe the next name is progressive, or even, what was the new one? Populist. I guess they are trying to convince everyone that they are popular. Even though they are in a minority, they have their little circle of friends. They have surrounded the President with yes-men. Yes, Mr. President, we did a poll and everyone agrees with your agenda. All of America wants it. It emboldens him to push for his agenda. Did they poll average America?

But I have to keep my spirits up. Even through the rain. There is a rain of discontent across America. We are waking up. Am I helping? Is anyone out there? Sometimes I feel as though I'm screaming inches away from a brick wall, instead of on the Ramparts. But it's like the story where God asked the man to push against the rock. He pushed and pushed and it never moved. Days went by which turned into weeks, which turned into months, which turned into years. He got discouraged, but he never stopped pushing. I don't remember what happened in the story, if something happened that his strength was tested, but it came about that the rock didn't need to be moved, the man needed to be strong. He asked God, why did you need me to move the rock? I tried with all my might and it never moved. God answered, I never asked you to MOVE it, I asked you to push against it.

I'm doing what I feel I've been asked to do. I wasn't told anyone would hear me, just that I should write. I'm doing that. I sure wish I could convince someone, or wake up someone, because writing alone won't save America.

I've said it before, I didn't fight for America in the Navy, tracking submarines in the cold war and making sure they didn't get too close to our coastline, to watch it become a socialist nation. We watched Russia fall. Is our generation going to get to watch America fall?

The Federalist Papers Critiqued Part 3

I, once again, am not the end all, tell all authority on the Federalist Papers. I heard Glenn Beck throw down the gauntlett in asking that someone interpret it in common language, and this is my attempt. I have done the first 2 chapters, if you want to look at my other blogs, this is chapter 3. Thanks for reading, I hope this makes it a bit easier.


Number 3: The Same Subject Continued (Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence) by John Jay

It's not new that people of any country, even an intelligent and well-informed country such as America, seldom adopt and can go on for years with the wrong opinion regarding their own interests. This is the reason why Americans naturally respect the high opinion and why Americans have considered it important that we have a federal government that is vested with a power, powers sufficient for the general and national purposes.

The more I investigate the reasons for the beginning of this opinion, the more I am convinced the reasons are convincing and final.

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. The safety of the people leads to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and you have to give freedom to act to those who wish to define it precisely and understandably.

Right now, I only mean to define it as the preservation of peace and tranquility, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as well as from dangers arising from domestic causes. As the former comes first in order, they will be discussed first. Let us examine whether a friendly Union, under a national government, affords them the best security that can be given against hostilities from abroad.

The number of wars which have happened or will happen will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether real or made up, which provoke them. If this is accurate, then we have to look at whether just as many wars will be started by a United America as a disunited America; for it should turn out that a united America would probably give the fewest, because it will follow that a Union would preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.

The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violations of treaties or direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain and with respect to the two latter (Spain and Britain) being neighbors to their territories (Canada and Mexico).

It is of high importance with America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and it would be easier if she were one national government than thirteen separate States or three or four distinct confederacies. For this opinion, I can state various reasons.

Once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but will be appointed to manage it. Though town or country may place men in State assemblies or senates or courts of justice or executive departments, there will be need for men of talents and other qualifications for offices under the national government. Though it is not uncommon to want for proper persons of experience in some States, we'll have the whole nation to pull from for the nation. It will result that the administration, the political counsels and judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematic and judicious than the individual States and therefore more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us.

Under the national government, treaties will be explained in detail, and executed in the same manner, the hearing of court cases on the same points and questions in thirteen States or in three or four confederacies, will not always be consistent, or as well by a variety of independent governments from different local laws with different interests and influences. The wisdom of the convention in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed only to one national government cannot be recommended too strongly.

It may tempt a State to swerve from good faith and justice because they will be giving up the advantage they currently hold; but those temptations, not reaching other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, will be fruitless, and your good faith and justice must be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.

Even if the governing party in a State should resist such temptations, they may persist. They result from circumstances peculiar to the State and may affect the inhabitants of that State and the governing party may not always be able to prevent the injustice meditated, or punish aggressors. The national government, not being affected by local circumstances, will neither be persuaded to commit the wrong themselves, nor want the power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.

So far, therefore, violations of treaties, either designed or accidental, and laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be grasped under one general government than under several lesser ones, and this favors the safety of the people.

As to the just causes of war that proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it's equally clear that one good national government gives vastly more security against dangers than that which can be derived from any other source.

Such violence more frequently occur because of the passions and interests of a part, rather than a whole, of one or two States rather than a Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been produced by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is, but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by improper conduct of individual States who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.

The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, causes quarrels more immediately with those border States. It might cause those States to incite war, under impulse of sudden irritation and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury; and nothing can so get rid of that danger so quickly as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence which will lower the passions and act in the interests of both parties involved.

But, not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them by friendly means. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect as well as others, will be more in capacity to act with more caution than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases will not be affected by this pride, and will proceed with moderation and candor and decide on means most proper to get them out of the difficulties that threaten them.

Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State of little consideration or power.

In the year 1685, the state of Genoa, having offended Louis XIV, endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to France, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain or any other powerful nation?

PUBLIUS [Jay]

What is the cost of Freedom?

Many ask what is the cost of Freedom these days? I know I don't pay the high cost that our men and women overseas battling for freedom pay every day, but sometimes bloggers pay dearly, too. The liberal bloggers may not consider the price when they see the big name conservatives on TV. They see Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and they see their fame and fortune and think that we who blog seek that same fame and fortune. I can tell you that since my blog has been up, I don't think anyone has even visited it. I don't have any followers, unless you count myself. So you can't say I do it for the fame.

I guess you can argue that I'm patient. Really? Is anyone really this patient? Yea, in today's climate I'm really patient. I put myself out here, with my flame proof panties so that I'm vulnerable to attack so I can get famous. That would almost be considered masochistic, not a glory hound.

What is the cost of freedom? I've told you that my family are Democrats. When I first got into this fight, it was because of the health care bill. The very first one was 1500 pages. How many of you actually read that puppy? I did, or at least most of it. There was an attached rider on it, called Take Back Your Health, S. 1640. I remember it, because it caused me to lose my cousin. You see, if that bill is still attached, and gets signed into law, it will mean that doctors won't get paid for certain services, and I felt obliged to warn my uncle. He's a doctor. Let me explain how it works. If you're on Medicare, not Medicaid, but Medicare, and you have a chronic condition like diabetes, breast cancer or prostate cancer or metabolic disorder, the government will mandate that you make healthy lifestyle changes. These will include 72 1-hour classes, to be given by your primary doctor, and he can't charge more than his office visit. You have to show improvement as measured by blood tests, a drop in weight as measured by waist measurement or stop smoking as measured my nicotine levels. Or you have to drop your cancer levels. If you don't, your doctor doesn't get paid. When I shared this on my face book page, I got called a liar and fear monger. My uncle, they said, would never do that, never charge the patient. I never said that. I said the doctor wouldn't get paid by the government. I sent the bill to my aunt and let her read it herself. I didn't get an apology. I didn't get my cousin back. I didn't lose my aunt, but my cousin took me off her face book and all the games I was friends with her on.

I have gotten personal attacks on a different forum; attacks against my children. I have noticed that when liberals are losing an argument, they get personal because they don't have facts to back up their argument. It's that, "I know you are, but what am I?" So, it's not a pleasant experience, not all roses for me. That's not what drives me on. If it was easy, I guess everyone would do it. The attacks got so bad, they drove me to the comforts of a conservative only forum for a while. And now I feel as if I'm screaming at a brick wall, only inches from my face. Of course, that's another liberal tactic: ignore them and they'll go away.

And it's certainly not for fortune. If it were for fortune, I would have monetized my site. Frankly, I considered monetizing my site. But I won't have control over who advertizes, or at least I don't think I would, and money is not as important as principles to me. So greed is not what drives me either.

But, you see, we won't go away. That's not what drives us, either. It's something a liberal probably wouldn't understand, or at least not a socialist. So, we're not driven by fame and fortune, nor stopped by the fear of losing family or reputation, and the fear of attacks only slow us down until we are stronger. Most of us who do blog, do it for higher reasons, and even not having an audience seems to stop us. We do it because we are driven to change minds, even if it is only one mind. We do it to encourage our side, even if it's one person. We do it in the hopes that some socialist will say, "I was cruising the blogs, and you won't believe the idiot I ran into, here's the blog..." and then someone else will go to it and think I made a good argument. But you know what? If you ignore me, someone else won't. My message will still get out. America will awaken. It's sort of like Dune....the beast will awaken.

America is used to going about her daily business, and letting the governance of the country be handled by the people we elected. We don't like having to take it over. But we will if we have to. It's sort of like when mom says to the rowdy children, "Don't make me come up there," when she hears the noise upstairs. She's gonna be mad when she gets up there.

So, the cost of Freedom, is worth the Freedom. I may not have given all like some in Iraq and Afghanistan have, but if it comes down to it, I would. I have served my country once. I would again. I'm 46 now, and this is how I can serve my country. If I lose family over it, I'll be sad. I only hope that I'm wrong in my facts that I uncover. I would rather be thought of as the crazy lady in the family, instead of being told a year down the road, "Why didn't you fight harder?" I don't want to be right, in a socialist Amerika, and be sorry I didn't give my all.

Federalist Papers Critique, Part 2

Concerning Danger From Foreign Force and Influence
by John Jay (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs)

(As noted before, I am not a political analyst, nor am I the end all, tell all for the Federalist Papers. This is just my interpretation of what I think they are saying. Take it with a grain of salt.)

The question put before the American people will, by it's consequences become evident that it is very important. It is possibly the most important decision to ever engage their attention.

No one can argue that we need government. It's also undeniable that when government is put in place, the people will turn over some of their natural rights in order to vest those rights in the government. We should consider whether it be in the best interest of the people of America whether that should be under one nation or separate confederacies and give the head of each of those the said powers instead of one national government.

Up to now, it's been held that we should be united, and the wishes, prayers and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been concentrated towards that effort. But now politicians are now saying that's wrong, and instead of looking for happiness in unity, we should split up into separate confederacies or sovereignities. No matter how this sounds, there are those that support it, and the numbers are growing. The arguments don't matter. Before you allow yourself to be swayed, make sure they're based on truth and sound policy.

(He looks on this country and notices that we aren't made up of individual distant territories, but on connected, fertile wide spreading country.) Providence (meaning God) blessed this land with a variety of soils and produce and streams and accommodations for it's inhabitants. A great variety of navigable streams form a chain around its borders as if to bind it together, while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distance, make highways for transporting goods.

With equal pleasure, I've noticed Providence (God) seemed pleased to give this land to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs and who have by fighting side by side established their general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears to be designed by Providence (God). It seems our inheritance, for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest of ties, and we shouldn't be split into a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties.

This is a common sentiment among all orders and denominations of me among us. We're united in this thought. So far, we've been united as a people, enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of value and blessings of union caused the people, at a very early period, to set up a federal government to preserve and keep it going. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence, even while their houses were still in flames, while their people were still bleeding, before hostilities were even over. Starting a government before hostilities are over doesn't leave much room for calm and mature inquiries and reflections for the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It's no wonder that under such unfavorable conditions that a government started would be deficient and inadequate for the purpose it was intended to answer.

There were intelligent people who realized this and regretted these defects. So, still no less attached to union, than loving liberty, they saw the danger that threatened the former (union) and more remotely the latter (liberty), and being persuaded that security for both could only be found in a national government wisely framed, they met in Philadelphia to consider that subject.

This convention was composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people and many of who had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men. In a mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.

And that's why it is recommended, and not imposed. It is not recommended that you throw it out blindly, nor accept it blindly, but that you give it the magnitude and sedate consideration and importance of the subject it demands, and which it ought to receive. But, it's been already remarked, that it is more wished than expected that it may be so considered and examined. Experience has taught us on more than one occasion that it is a high hope. Let's not forget it was the fear of imminent danger that brought the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet the press tore them apart and wrote against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, because they thought they'd be caught up in consequences, due to old attachments or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were untiring in their efforts to persuade the people to reject the advice of patriotic Congress. Many were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. They would be from different parts of the country, brought together and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired accurate knowledge in the head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations made the people rely greatly on the judgement and integrity of the Congress; they began to take their advice no matter the various arts and endeavors used to deter and dissuade them from it. But, if the people at large had reason to have confidence in the men of that congress, when they weren't fully tried or known, they have more reason now. They are even older now and have grown in political knowledge and proved their patriotism and are members of this convention and carry their acquired knowledge and experience.

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress as well as the late convention have invariably joined with the people in thinking that America's prosperity is linked to it's being a Union. The reason of the convention was to keep it a union. What good purpose is it to depreciate, or make it of less importance? Why would you even suggest that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always been right on this subject, and their attachment to the cause of the union rests on great and weighty reasons which I shall try to develop and explain in later papers. They who proclaim the substituting a number of distinct confederacies on the table as a plan for the convention to consider seem to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case and I wish every good citizen would see that if the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet:

FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.

Federalist Papers Critique, Part 1 - Introduction

I will be attempting to put into everyday language the Federalist papers. This is a huge task, and I don't even pretend to be the end all, tell all expert on this. This is just my understanding of it, in my humble, Midwestern education.


The subject of this paper tells how important it is. Understanding just the very existence of the UNION the safety and welfare of the parts that make up the UNION itself, and the fate of our empire are in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been remarked (to Alexander Hamilton or his generation) that the people of this country, by the way they act and their example, will decide this important question: whether or not we are capable of establishing good government or whether we are destined to for ever depend on accident and force, presumably of others. That decision is made in that era, for all of us in our era. If they make a mistake, it would be the misfortune of all mankind. (They felt the weight of their decision.)

This concept adds the motivations of loving all of mankind to those of patriotism, and heightens the solitude that good men feel for this event. They must examine their true interests and make sure they are unbiased by considerations connected with the public good. (But he knew it was hard to do. And he knew there were special interests at hand.) Men have passions, points of view, prejudices that would get in the way of the discovery of truth.

The biggest obstacle to the new constitution would be a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which would cause a lowering of power. (He knew that some men would lose power, and would be loath to give it up, once they got it.) Another obstacle would be the perverted ambition of another class of men who would hope to raise themselves by confusing their country, or to cause separations among the country instead of unifying the country under one government.

(But, that said, he doesn't want to dwell on that. Nothing to see here, let's move along. He knows he'd be lying if he thought he could squelch all the opposition of any set of men who are only interested in personal ambition.) Some will be seeking upright intentions. Some may be lead astray by others. We will see wise men on both sides of the questions and they may be serving a just cause out of a false bias to the judgement. So we must use our judgement and make sure we are right on any controversy. And those that advocate for truth are not always pure in their stand, either. Ambition, covetousness, personal animosity, party opposition and other motives are more praiseworthy sometimes and operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of the question. Just like in religion, you can't win people by beating them over the head with your ideas. (I believe the phrase here would be you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.)

(But he knows that passions will be unleashed across the nation.) According to the opposite party, we can conclude that they will together hope to show that their views are right and convince everyone of it by how loudly they talk and how bitter they attack. But their zeal is hostile to the principles of liberty. We will be represented as acting on the heart instead of the head, and against the public good. But, jealousy is usually the result of violent love, and noble enthusiasm of liberty and being infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. It will also be forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty. We need a sound and well-informed judgement, and their interests can never be separated. A dangerous ambition often lurks behind that zeal for government efficiency that masquerades as a zeal for the people. History teaches that the first has been found to be a certain road to the introduction to despotism. These are the men who have overturned the liberties of republics. These men usually begin their career by paying a meanly servile court to the people, and ending as tyrants.

I want to keep my eye on putting you on your guard against all attempts to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare other than the truth. These people are not friendly to the new constitution. After having considered it, I think it's in your best interest to adopt it. It is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity and your happiness. I'm not going to pretend to deliberate over it, when I've already decided. I will lay before you the reasons.

I propose in a series of papers to discuss the following particulars: The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity -- The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union -- The necessity of a government with at least as much energy to do this -- A Constitution with the principles of a republican government -- it's analogy to your own State constitution --and lastly, to preserve liberty and property.

I will also try to answer the objections that have come up.

It may be thought of as shallow to offer arguments to prove the necessity of a UNION, no doubt engraved deeply on the hearts of a great body of people in every State, and it may be imagined that we have no adversaries. But it's been whispered that 13 states are too many and we need separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. This will probably be proposed until it has enough to be looked upon. It would be looked upon as an alternative to the new constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils and probable dangers that every state will be exposed to if it fell apart. We'll look at that next.

Barack Obama and the Prom Queen

I just realized what America is like. It's like America has been at a bar. America has been busy partying, drinking away, some have never drank before and are a bit tipsy. Those are the ones who are excited about having a black man for president. Whoo Hoo! It's a party. He is a handsome man! Did they even listen to the words he was saying when he was in campaign mode? Who cares? Just look at him? He's gonna represent us when he gets in office. We've been held down so many years. Does it matter that we were held down by his kind? Kind of like the big Frat boy who comes in and there's Betty, on the bar dancing because she's had one too many. He talks her into taking her top off. Pretty soon he's got her not only dancing on the bar with out her top, he's slipped her a date rape drug in her drink, and walked her home.

Then he invited the rest of the frat house over. That would SEIU, the prescriptions drug companies, whoever he can think of. Now some of them have scruples. They see poor Betty just lying there and they start discussing how, now this just ain't right. The big frat guy knows this drug ain't gonna last forever...he starts bribing, cajoling and badgering them to get in line.

He finally gets everyone in line. That's when the policies start coming....the rape of the Prom Queen. Well, that's about the time the drug starts to wear off. Now America wakes up...but it's a bit too late. Everything is in place. Do you think she'll be upset? She may turn into Carrie at the Prom.....Have you heard the phrase Hell hath no furry like a woman scorned?

What we are doing is banging on the door, trying to wake her up because we are the neighbors who hear the party going on next door and we saw them drag her in. We know she's not conscious. We are concerned citizens who can't watch and do nothing. Can we wake her before it's too late? We don't need another Carrie. I saw that movie...it didn't end well.

Lori Ann Smith
I stand for freedom, though none stand with me, until they knock me down and I can stand no more

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 unprecidented 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 fittist survive. The unfit die out. There is a quote from John D. Rockefeller: " The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest.....This is not an evil tendency of business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God." So, by linking these concepts together, they established as fact that those against them were against progress, and would die out because they were weak. They were becoming more elite, a higher form of society, evolving. They were also pushing that the United States was a democracy, or that it ought to be. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. But as you see here, the progressives were the elite, not the conservatives. They were not for the common man.

In 1911, they turned their agenda to the school system. Charles A. Ellwood said, that the schools should be used as "a conscious instrument of social reconstruction." The progressives wanted to throw out religious and humane learning, (I take that as the humanities, or arts) and experiment with what would work. They wanted to "socialize" the young. This is when child-centered education began. This started the schools down the road towards what we have now, with the Department of Education taking the control away from the teacher in the classroom.

The progressives had even crept into the Christian movement, according to these texts, who call them the social gospellers. It calls them the most vicious attackers of the American economic system, calling for reform of our tax system. So, in the early 1900's socialists had infiltrated the churches and were calling on reforms and using God's word to back it up. They are the ones who basically were against the free market and started this whole movement that it was against God to be rich.

This is when muckraking became popular. I guess that's what we're doing. Expose articles became popular because the people were hungry for the truth about what was really going on. They list David Graham Phillips' Treason of the Senate...sound familiar?

Originally, Democratic Parties in the south were deemed private parties and excluded blacks. Even with the 14th amendment, blacks were only allowed to vote in the general elections. I guess they didn't want them voting until they had decided who they could vote for. And the south and become solidly Democratic. The progressives were the ones who pushed for segregation. They turned on the black voters. In the late 1800's there was no segregation, there was natural separation, but no forced segregation. By World War I, widespread segregation had been established in the states of the old Confederacy and the neghboring 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, forebearance, 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 dispicable 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 refered 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 usurption of power.

One of the biggest lies, apparently, was Social Security. It was also the biggest redistrubution 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 accur. 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 hightest deficit in peacetime history to that point: 12.4 billion. He turned out to be a middle of the road Republican. Or is it a DIABLO? Either way, he couldn't turn the tide back from the path to socialism.

In 1960, we elected John F. Kennedy, the youngest man elected to the office of President of the United States of America. He did institute several programs, but this series said he had a hostile Democratic congress. Upon his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson became President.

Johnson pushed the Great Society, which was real close to being openly socialist. Apparently, Barry Goldwater saw the significance of it, and he pushed for liberty in his campaign and lost the moderates to Johnson. Johnson wasn't bothered by scruples, and used a combination of arm twisting, cajolery and trades to get the bills he wanted passed in a Democrat controlled Congress. the National Republican Congressional Committee classified it as a 3B congress: bullied, badgered and brainwashed. Does that sound familiar? Johnson probably did more for the socialist movement than did any modern president. The only thing that stopped his momentum was the Viet Nam War. It also ended his presidency.

After World War II, America has even pushed Welfare abroad. As quoted from this history book, " ...the United States promoted welfarism and subsidized socialism in Europe." The Eupropean Recovery Program allows countries to trade with each other, yet shields them from the world market. They are also dependant on the United States.

This brings our history up to modern times, so I'll quit here. Besides, my mind is boggled. I am now in my generation, and had just no idea of what had gone on before my birth. The victor writes history. And history is being rewritten all the time. Luckily, we have the power to elect our officials, and we have periodically disrupted their plan through out these 100 years. But you can see how the path has wandered and meandered through our history. We are well on the path to a nanny state. I have gotten a much better appreciation for President Hoover. I had always heard that he was the cold and callous man, that he wouldn't even help people during the depression. But that isn't entirely true, is it. It's like the Bible says. Give a man a fish and help him for a day. Teach him to fish and help him for a life time. If we continue to put people on welfare, and leave them there, they will have learned helplessness. I have a handicapped son. When I was teaching him self-care when he was very young, I was told not to give up when he acted as though he didn't know how to do it. Any child will act as though he doesn't know how to get dressed if he thinks you're going to dress him. Why put out the effort if he doesn't have to? If he can stand there and hold up his arms and you'll put on his shirt, why should he struggle to do it himself? It's called learned helplessness. If I show how hard of a time I'm having, you'll come help me, and I won't have to do it. I did the same thing to get out of weeding the cucumber with my mother. I weeded the cucumbers instead of the weeds. It's human nature.

Sooner or later you have to cut off the aide. I'm not against Welfare. Maybe there should be a time limit. That would encourage people to do something to better themselves. Everyone falls on hard times, and needs a hand up. But, there are an awful lot of nanny state programs, and there are people out there to tell you how to play the government and get your "fair" share. And to broaden government aide to include 150% of poverty and include government run health care? I don't think so. We should be shrinking government involvement. We need another Herbert Hoover about now.

Source: A Basic History of the United States, Volumes 1-5, by Clarence B. Carson, copyright American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, July 1994

Lori Ann Smith
I stand for Freedom, though I stand alone, until they knock me down and I can stand no more.