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.

I Took My Ball and Went Home

I guess it was bound to happen. I just expected it on this blog, not a safe zone where it was supposed to be all conservatives; like minded women. I won't mention the site, because liberals will claim that the movement is falling apart. But, you see, I think they plant their own people in these movements, cause havoc, then claim that the movement is falling apart.

I posted my blog about the code violations on another site that I'm on. It's supposed to be preaching to the choir. I only posted it because someone else posted about being a sunshine patriot. Are you prepared to be a patriot in fair weather and rough times? Well, yes. I believe I was picked on because of my sign on the front of my house, and because my house made the news for my flag being upside down and the stance I took. I was not disrespecting my flag. Our nation was in distress when the Democrats can lock out a portion of the United States and their views and write bills that don't include them. That's fascism. That's dangerous. I considered or nation in distress. We live in America, it's my right to demonstrate the way I want.

She took offense, and used her freedom of speech to comment on my blog. However, she also used poor blog etiquette, and turned her comment on my blog into a blog in it's own right, so that the whole site would see her reem me out. I wasn't aware of her blog at first. I commented back, stating that I was a Veteran of the United States Navy, and earned the right to fly my flag however I chose. I tracked submarines during the cold war, yada, yada, yada, and my husband served 20 years in the Navy. This household is well aware of flag regulations, and don't lecture me on patriotism. Then, I went to research her, and find that she turned her comments into a blog, so I reposted those exact comments on that blog, too.

So, she comes back, only on my blog, and diss's my service to the Navy, saying tracking boggy submarines isn't serving my country. Tell it to the Viet Nam veterans who bled for their country. Well, Missy, if it weren't for me, you'd be speaking Russian.

So, long story, short, it threw me into a post traumatic stress episode, which threw me into an epileptic seizure. Seems I only have a seizure when I go into a PTSD episode. So I've been inside my own head for the last couple days trying to figure out how she did it. How she managed to do what the flaming liberals haven't been able to do since I've been fighting for my country. You see, I don't know about other PTSD victims, but if I can figure out how an episode relates back to the original trauma, I can come out of it. So, every time it sparks one, not only do I have to relive the words that caused it over and over and over and over and over (that's the nature of PTSD), I have to go back to the original trauma and relive it while I sort out what the similarities are that would remind me of it in the first place. PTSD means you replay the words over and over, like a tape recorder in your head, or in this case a video, and there is no erase button. For my health I had to cut all ties with that site. I took down all my blogs (I have copies) which erased all the comments that she put up. I don't care. So the only copies I have are now running in my head. So what? They'll eventually stop. They always do.

PTSD is a strange beast. It rears it's ugly head in the strangest of places. I had thought that this site was a save zone. That's possibly the connection. It's like getting fragged in your bunk by friendly fire. For civilians, fragged is when someone throws a grenade in your bunk. My husband gets the "you're not a real veteran because you didn't serve in Viet Nam" bull crap all the time from liberal Viet Nam veterans.....mostly only the ones who are LIBERALS. I only have heard it from the ones who got drafted. Guess what? I volunteered to serve my country, no one drafted me. My husband volunteered 5 TIMES! to serve his country. He didn't come out hating his country, or with an axe to grind.

If Obama suddenly had a flash of insight and started supporting the constitution (I know, it would be a miracle, but....) I would become his biggest supporter. Of course, there would be out of necessity, a proving time, because he's lied so long. I don't hate the man, I hate the policies. If he stood up to Congress, and started doing what this country needed to recover, I'd support everything I thought we needed. I just know he's not going to do it. He's a socialist. He has an agenda that HE believes is best for the country, that will bring us to some utopia, but it's a lie. We all see it, why can't he? Socialism doesn't work. When the people can't work for a surplus, they don't work. They won't work for their neighbor's pocket. Jamestown proved it, they almost starved out.

If this woman who attacked me had bothered to look up any of my blogs before she attacked me and called me a progressive (actually told me to go my progressive way), she would have realized that I tried to give a history lesson on progressives. It's up here on my site if you want to look it up. Progressives in History. But she was too worried about stirring the pot to and making the conservative movement look like it's falling apart to worry about facts.

That's the sign of a liberal. They make you mad, and try to make you look bad. She fights like a liberal, argues like a liberal, smells like a liberal, gee, must be a liberal. I took my ball and went home.

______________________________

As an update, it's now February 22 and I've finally put the PTSD behind me because I've finally figured out what sparked it. My PTSD is not military related. I can hear her now if she ever comes here and reads this. She'll think I'm trivializing PTSD. I had a REALLY friend in the mid-90's who helped me through my first flashback episode or I would have thought I was on a really bad acid trip. He was a Viet Nam veteran and explained all this flashback stuff for me. I was dealing with repressed memories coming forward from childhood abuse. This friend was as close as any person could be and not be a lover. As a matter of fact I was the only one besides another friend who was a police officer who could talk him down from his own PTSD episodes.

But, I digress. I figured out what it was. This lady who attacked me had said that "We always tell everyone to display a 50 ft "Don't tread on me flag" instead of turning their flag upside down." Who is she to tell everyone what to do? Is she a self proclaimed leader of the Tea Party movement? Did she just proclaim herself dictator? Glenn Beck warned everyone there would be people who would try to take the horns of the movement for their own purposes. The beauty of our "movement" is that we don't have a leader. We are AMERICANS. We are Independent. We have brains of our own. I was abused by someone just like that, who thought she knew so much better than everyone else what we needed, including my mother. We have a president like that. And this woman thought *I* was the progressive. She wants to be everyone's big sister, or mother and let them know what's best, because they surely don't know themselves....the definition of progressive.

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.