Trust Me, I'm With The Government, I'm Here to Help

Well, I was always the rebel child, and I recognize condescension when I hear it. I recognize patronizing speaking when I hear it. I recognize telling people what they want to hear, when I hear it. Did he hold a private conference with all the Progressives and say, don't worry, I don't mean a word I'm about to say? You have Bobble-head Biden and Puppet Master Pelosi in the background. Why do I call them that? Well, I saw Speaker Pelosi grab the President of the United States and pull him in and say something to him. Now, who in their right mind, would do that? Since when does the Speaker of the House think she can shake the hand of the President of the Free World and feel she has enough power to pull him towards her for a comment? Rather familiar, aren't we? He was almost caught off balance. Is she the Puppet Master? Is President Obama the Key Master? We have got to get the two of these together...no wait, different movie. Who ya gonna call?

And how dare he start out mentioning the constitution, the man who has stomped all over it. Is he trying to pull together the tea party movement? Is he placating, or what? As an overall critique, I counted 3 blame Bush's, 1 blame Americans, 3 blame Wall Street and a couple blame the banks. But I was watching and not keeping close count. I have to admit, this is the first State of the Union address I have watched all the way through, ever. I also caught him in 4 lies. Me, and I am new to politics, caught him in 4 lies. I'm not a political analyst. I am an average American citizen, a mom. And I caught him in lies. I'm worried because my children's future is at stake.

1. He said he was against the bank bailouts. Didn't he do them? He sold us on it. He told us it was necessary. He told us it was a good thing. Now he's against them?

2. He told us if we had done nothing unemployment would be double what it is now. WHAT? He told us if we do nothing, unemployment will go as high as 8%....it's 10.5 reported if you don't count the people who have given up....if you count the people who have given up, I believe the numbers are as high as 17%...I don't have those numbers on hand. We HAD to do the stimulus because to do nothing would be BAD. Now doing nothing would have caused 20% umemployment? Wait, is that new math?

3. You can keep your doctors and your plan. I have read the health care plan. I know this is a lie. If ANYTHING in your health care plan changes, a deductible, they drop a doctor, ANY ONE SINGLE THING, the plan goes away. In the senate version, if the insurance company is out of compliance, they will be fined $1 per life covered PER DAY that they are out of compliance. Let's say they have 1 million people covered. The Secretary of Heath services says they're out of compliance.....they owe 1 million dollars a day until they are in compliance. Can they rewrite the policy in one day?

4. The health care bill will reduce the deficit. This might be a lie on the surface, but if you count all the insurance companies that will be out of compliance, it might be the truth. And if you count the death panels and the number of people the health care will kill, it might be the truth. Now, libs, don't tell me there aren't death panels. Can you say mammogram guidelines? There's also a line in there about insurance companies will use established guidelines to determine what they will pay for, and what to cover. So, who can just go out and pay for a mammogram if their insurance company doesn't? I can't. Insurance company says no, you don't get one. I got breast cancer at the age of 41. I'd be dead.

Now, for specifics. He mentioned struggles. How does he know about struggles? He lived a life of privilege. Didn't he have a step father in the embassy? Then he got sent to his Hawaiian banker grandmother? He got a grant for college? Where's the struggle? Oh, he's read about it. Let's see, my brother got given a car, he didn't take care of it. He bought one and took care of that one. It's different when you live through it versus reading about it.

He talks about taxing all the big banks. Did he take any economic classes? I did. If you tax a company, do you think they will consider it their patriotic duty to just absorb that? No. They are going to pass it along to their consumers. They are going to suddenly start charging for everything. Just like suddenly we have to pay for every bag we check on the airlines. Oh, it's to pay for gas. That's like taking a cab ride and having to pay for the gas, too. Why doesn't he just shut down the banks? Because he knows the American people would scream socialism. They did that in the early 1900's. Have you noticed the definitions on the internet lately? No one really can tell you what socialism is. It's taking over the banks, businesses, by the government. This way he can regulate them out of business and say he didn't do it on a socialist ticket. Because what do you think the American people are going to do when their banks start charging them for everything...no more free checks, charges for transfers, charges for more than 5 auto transfers to cover a bounced check or whatever? They are going to look for a smaller bank. The big banks are going to be looking for a bail out, or they're going to collapse. And he said that all with that angry face...that's his I had to say it face.

And we didn't get a tax break....I didn't see it in my paycheck. I saw withholding go down. I mentioned that in my introduction. Am I going to owe it back? I'll let you know after I file.

And he did that whole "I don't accept second place for America," speech? Where did this patriotism come from? Since when is he even remotely patriotic? Since he became president? Since he's promoting a socialist Amerika? And that's not a typo, I think he wants Amerika. He knows so much better than WE, THE PEOPLE, what is best for us. It's like Hilary, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Progressive. Progressive = Socialist. In her own words, America.

The sarcasm was just dripping from his speech, even the "I thought I'd get applause with that one." The Republicans could feel it. They don't like being locked out of the process. Even when the Republicans did have a majority, they didn't close the door and say you don't matter, Democrats, we're going to just forget you exist. And he speaks of trust? He wants transparency, without calling down the Democrats for hiding behind closed doors and making policy. And actually stand there and say he doesn't have lobbyists? Does he think we're all stupid? I've been in politics for a year, I may be naieve, but I ain't stupid. I know how to do research. And I don't get all my information from one spot, either.

And as a side note, someone should tell Pelosi that we can see her read the telepromter. Let the President read his own teleprompter. We don't need to know that you know before us what he's gonna say. At least pretend you don't know what he's gonna say.

And through the whole "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" part of the speech, he looked so bored. He doesn't believe or care if Americans are tough. He wants Americans to be European. Why is it that he can come up with such passion when another country needs help?

And in closing, I have a question? Where was the shout out to the police officers who took down the Fort Hood terrorist? I mean, they were sitting right beside your wife, Mr. President. Did you not see them? I mean, she is a petite little thing, sitting next to that Amazon of a woman. And I don't know her partner's politics, did you overlook him because they don't match yours, or because he's in the military? Or is it just because Major Hasan is Muslim, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions?

I may live in Texas currently, but I was born in Missouri. Show me I can trust you. Until then I feel like I stepped into Men In Black...Trust me, I'm with the government, I'm here to help. Only Will Smith is better looking.

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.