I've been open about my military experience. I was in the United States Navy from 1984 through 1988. It's been a while. I was an Ocean System Technician, Analyst. The rate doesn't exist anymore. My husband was in the Navy between 1981 through 2001. He was an Engineman. I only got to the rank of E-4. I PNA'd E-5 by .23 points. That's passed but not advanced. That means I passed the test to advance in rank, but enough other people also passed the test that they looked at the brownie points, how their superiors rated them, and I didn't rate as well as everyone else did. You see, I could do my job really well, but I didn't play the political game as well as everyone else did. Can you imagine that, knowing me now? There was one ribbon that I won, but wasn't allowed to wear because I wasn't a mobile unit that had I been allowed to actually wear it, I would have been advanced to E-5. I don't remember what it was now....my memory isn't as good as it once was. Would that have made a difference in me staying in? Probably not. You see, the OTA rate was full of prima donas.
Let me explain that statement. I was listening to my rate complain about barracks furniture not being up to their standards, while I dated a man telling me stories about hot racking it. Hot racking it is when 4 men are assigned to 3 beds. You have to wake up the person relieving you, so you have somewhere to sleep. You either change the sheets, or sleep in the same sheets he got out of. As a woman......ICKKKK. They were prima donas. I had originally tried to come into the Navy as a photographer. I tested too high, so they tried to put me into a highly technical rate. They said had I been male, I would have gone into a nuclear rate. That's not conceit, that's the Navy trying to push the highly technical rates. I thought I was going into an electronic rate....which had a civilian equivalant. But the month before I went in, they split the rate into those who analyzed the data, and those who worked on the equipment. I analyzed the data. No civilian equivalant.
So, after 3 years of high stress, I decided to cross rate to photographer. My dad had already taught me how to develop black and white film. I researched it and it was not required that I go to A-school. All I had to do was get my PARS signed off and do the training. I approached my Chief and asked him. He said he would not support that decision. I went to the other base ON MY OWN TIME and got everything signed off. I brought everything to him. I explained to him that it wasn't A-school required, that all I had to do was take the Photographer 3rd class exam (PH3) test and I could laterally convert. Instead of being an OTA3, I would be a PH3. He told me he had pulled strings with people he knew in Washington, D.C. and it was A-school required FOR ME. And the first opening wasn't available for 14 months. I had 12 months left on my enlistment. Or something to that effect. Whatever it was, it would require an extension on my enlistment.
I loved the Navy. I was what they called a lifer. I would have stayed in for at least 20 years, had they let me. I told them I would extend my enlistment if they put in that they would guarentee that I would have adminstrative duties for that entire time, they would keep me off the floor. They said they couldn't do that. I got out.
While I was in the Navy, I had a friend that was gay. Now you know where this article is really going. She was a really nice lady, mostly. She was enlisted. She mostly left me alone, but I considered us friends. She knew I was straight. She told me one time that most women in the military that were gay liked to bend straight women. It was more of a challenge than dating already gay women. She did just that. She dated a previously straight officer. The enlisted woman ended up getting put out of the military, while the officer claimed that she was blackmailed into the relationship, and got off scott free....no charges. I knew my friend. I don't think there was blackmail, maybe coercion, but not blackmail. There might have been remorse on the part of the officer, so what? A reason to destory another person's career?
That said, this was a time of don't ask, don't tell. I knew she was, she knew I knew, we didn't discuss it very often. I didn't have to stay in the same barracks room with her so it didn't matter to me. She had a desk right next to mine, but that was as close as we got. We sometimes socialized, but we were friends, like having a male friend. But if you think it was all quiet back then, you've been under a rock. We had women openly dancing together in the enlisted club and kissing. This was in the mid-1980's. Now you couldn't be a man and openly gay, but it was nothing to be a woman and openly gay. If you were a man on a ship and it was found out you were gay, you got thrown overboard. I asked one time why that was. Why didn't the women get thrown out? Why was it so prevailant? I was told, discretely, that there were too many women high up that were gay.
My opinion is that I would rather share a barracks room with a man than a gay woman. After hearing from my friend (and remember, I'm not a homophobe...I considered her a friend) that it was a sort of hobby of her and her friends to bend straight women. They considered it a challenge. If you lived in the same room, would they take no for an answer today? This was 25 years ago. Times were much different 25 years ago. What do you do now, when someone makes a pass at you in your own room? Can you imagine the stress that's gonna put on our military? Now they not only have to worry about the enemy, but friends. And what if they don't take the advances....I've lived with an abuser, it's not any fun. As a matter of fact it was so stressful on me, it caused me to develop epilepsy. Can we put as much stress on our soldiers and sailors as possible?
I believe this is another step at demoralization of our country. You can see the video that was uncovered by someone on asamom.org that I posted at the top of my blog. It's a former KGB agent telling how it would happen (since it was filmed possible around 1986 - it's not dated) when it comes. He said that if America falls, we won't have anywhere to defect to. He also said that if people think they want a Marxist-Leninist utopia and they bring about the fall of America, they will become disillusioned when they don't get that utopia and join the desentors. That's when the people pulling their strings (in our case I suppose that would be China) would swoop in and eliminate them. His words, not mine.
Demoralizing, sort of like pushing the gay agenda? I think you need to take a look at the morals of other nations. One of the arguments for giving up control of the internet is that America lets too much garbage on it. They say our free speech lets on too much triple x stuff, and if they had control, they would censor that off. China and most other countries haven't suffered that "moral decline." So, when America falls, and China swoops in to take over, do you think the gays will have any rights? No. So, who are the far let trying to please? They aren't pleasing me. Are they pleasing you? Are these your values? What is the numbers in America that is gay? Why are we pandering to 1.51% of the population (according to a "broad-based coalition of gay rights organizations and homosexual advocacy groups." And this includes gay, lesbian and bi-sexual. Have to admit it doesn't include transgender. Oh, just found another .7% for gay men as a separate catagory, and lesbians as .32%. This was found on http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html. We are going to let 2.53% of the population let our morals go down the tubes, and threaten the security of our military?
Now I'm all for free speech, and letting them have their say. I fought for that. But when 2.53% of the population of America starts to determine policy? That's not a Republic....that's a Banana Republic.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
What's Wrong With Ceding Control of the Internet?
So, President Obama would like us to Cede control of the Internet to other authorities. And what, ask you, is wrong with that? After all, the Diversity Czar thinks it's time for those in control to step down and let others have a chance at control, right? I believe those are close to his actual words. To tell you the truth, it's so traumatic, what all these Czars are doing to my country, my mind is doing it's best to block it out. I personally (and mind you, this is PERSONAL OPINION) think that anyone who spouts communist theories and is in the government ought to be tried for treason. I did after all, spend 4 years, and my husband spent 20 years, in the United States Navy fighting all enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic. But I digress.
First a little history: According to "A Brief History of the Internet" by Walt Howe and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. (Based on a work at www.walthowe.com.) "J.C.R. Licklider of MIT, first proposed a global network of computers in 1962, and moved over to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in late 1962 to head the work to develop it. Leonard Kleinrock of MIT and later UCLA developed the theory of packet switching, which was to form the basis of Internet connections. Lawrence Roberts of MIT connected a Massachusetts computer with a California computer in 1965 over dial-up telephone lines. It showed the feasibility of wide area networking, but also showed that the telephone line's circuit switching was inadequate. Kleinrock's packet switching theory was confirmed. Roberts moved over to DARPA in 1966 and developed his plan for ARPANET. These visionaries and many more left unnamed here are the real founders of the Internet."
Wow, so the founders of the Internet are from Massechusetts. They are going against Ted Kennedy. Apparently in 1968, Ted Kennedy sent them a congratulatory telegram when he found out.
"E-mail was adapted for ARPANET by Ray Tomlinson of BBN in 1972." ARPANET is the name of the Internet in the beginning.
"The Internet matured in the 70's as a result of the TCP/IP architecture first proposed by Bob Kahn at BBN and further developed by Kahn and Vint Cerf at Stanford and others throughout the 70's. It was adopted by the Defense Department in 1980 replacing the earlier Network Control Protocol (NCP) and universally adopted by 1983."
So, as you can see, it was designed by Americans, developed by Americans, and controlled by Americans since the late 1960's. One can say that's a monopoly, or a good thing. Let's look at the difference between our country and other countries.
We have free speech in our country. I have this blog, where I can criticize the policies of our government without fear that black helicopters will land outside my house and take me away in the middle of the night. At least not yet. I don't need to worry that men in black suits will appear at my door and rush me out in handcuffs for my opinions because they are in opposition to the current administration. At least not yet.
On Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010, the Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko announced that he signed an order stating that he would be monitoring all Internet use. Is that free speech? He set up a site explaining what would be available on the Internet from now on....is that free speech? Is that what America wants? That's what we'll get if Russia gets control of the Internet. That's probably what we'll get if the United Nations gets control of the Internet.
According to http://www.chinatechnews.com/2009/09/11/10538-chinas-internet-cafe-associations-publish-joint-declaration China is cracking down on illegal internet cafes. Thus "promoting the healthy development of the Internet cafe industry in China, these associations announced in the declaration that they will voluntarily purify the Chinese Internet cafe market, stimulate the civilized operation of Internet cafes, prevent young people from abusing Internet cafes, improve the environment of Internet cafes, eliminate potential security risks, and protect the legitimate rights of Chinese consumers." They will also "resist vulgar Internet content, eliminate harmful information from the Internet, and protect intellectual property rights and copyrights in Internet cafes to create a good Internet environment. They will also self-discipline themselves and encourage fair competition."
Now, this after Wikipedia states that the Chinese does not censor the Internet. I would say this skirts really close to censorship. Do we want that in America? Do we want someone telling us that that particular site is unauthorized? That particular information is vulgar? What would the left think? Someone swoops in and says, "I'm sorry, you can't pee on the Mona Lisa and call it art." I'm sorry, we've suddenly decided that homosexuality is devient behavior and it's not allowed anymore. Wow, what would the left say to that? Free speech would go down the tubes. Of course right now, free speech is in jeopardy because the right wants it, but what happens when the left wants to say something. Have they thought of that? Does China promote the homosexual agenda? I wonder.... That's what we would have if China got control of the Internet.
Another option is to give control over to the United Nations. Really? According to http://news.cnet.com/Will-the-U.N.-run-the-Internet/2010-1071_3-5780157.html several countries have weighed in with their opinions.
• Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
• Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
• China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body."
Ghana: "There was unanimity for the need for an additional body...This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N."
Let's see. Erase all of our propriety rights. It doesn't matter that we devoloped it, we invented it, and we have free speech in this country. They don't like free speech. Syria says they don't like being spammed and don't want to buy our software to stop the spam. So, develop your own software to stop the spam. Oh, we have the technology and you don't? Send some of your people to our schools. Oh, that would mean contributing to a capitalist form of government and it goes against your principals? Get over it. Brazil doesn't like the triple X sites? Don't go to them, because we don't believe in censorship. The solution isn't spread censorship to all nations, whether they want it or not. And China? I think they just said we weren't competent...they can loan us money, but we can't be trusted to run the Internet? I think we need to give them the brush off. And why they heck do we need to listen to Ghana? Their population: Population: 23,832,495. The population of Texas: Population: 22,118,509. I think Texas could just about kick your butt in a fight. Why do we need to listen to Ghana? Do they have a dog in this hunt?
So, monopoly doesn't apply in this instance. It's a matter of we know how to play fair and they don't. Do you want someone who doesn't have our principles making the rules for the game? Do you want someone who cheats telling you how to play the game? Oh, we have those people in Congress already. Well, we can fix that situation. Elect Patriots.
First a little history: According to "A Brief History of the Internet" by Walt Howe and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. (Based on a work at www.walthowe.com.) "J.C.R. Licklider of MIT, first proposed a global network of computers in 1962, and moved over to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in late 1962 to head the work to develop it. Leonard Kleinrock of MIT and later UCLA developed the theory of packet switching, which was to form the basis of Internet connections. Lawrence Roberts of MIT connected a Massachusetts computer with a California computer in 1965 over dial-up telephone lines. It showed the feasibility of wide area networking, but also showed that the telephone line's circuit switching was inadequate. Kleinrock's packet switching theory was confirmed. Roberts moved over to DARPA in 1966 and developed his plan for ARPANET. These visionaries and many more left unnamed here are the real founders of the Internet."
Wow, so the founders of the Internet are from Massechusetts. They are going against Ted Kennedy. Apparently in 1968, Ted Kennedy sent them a congratulatory telegram when he found out.
"E-mail was adapted for ARPANET by Ray Tomlinson of BBN in 1972." ARPANET is the name of the Internet in the beginning.
"The Internet matured in the 70's as a result of the TCP/IP architecture first proposed by Bob Kahn at BBN and further developed by Kahn and Vint Cerf at Stanford and others throughout the 70's. It was adopted by the Defense Department in 1980 replacing the earlier Network Control Protocol (NCP) and universally adopted by 1983."
So, as you can see, it was designed by Americans, developed by Americans, and controlled by Americans since the late 1960's. One can say that's a monopoly, or a good thing. Let's look at the difference between our country and other countries.
We have free speech in our country. I have this blog, where I can criticize the policies of our government without fear that black helicopters will land outside my house and take me away in the middle of the night. At least not yet. I don't need to worry that men in black suits will appear at my door and rush me out in handcuffs for my opinions because they are in opposition to the current administration. At least not yet.
On Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010, the Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko announced that he signed an order stating that he would be monitoring all Internet use. Is that free speech? He set up a site explaining what would be available on the Internet from now on....is that free speech? Is that what America wants? That's what we'll get if Russia gets control of the Internet. That's probably what we'll get if the United Nations gets control of the Internet.
According to http://www.chinatechnews.com/2009/09/11/10538-chinas-internet-cafe-associations-publish-joint-declaration China is cracking down on illegal internet cafes. Thus "promoting the healthy development of the Internet cafe industry in China, these associations announced in the declaration that they will voluntarily purify the Chinese Internet cafe market, stimulate the civilized operation of Internet cafes, prevent young people from abusing Internet cafes, improve the environment of Internet cafes, eliminate potential security risks, and protect the legitimate rights of Chinese consumers." They will also "resist vulgar Internet content, eliminate harmful information from the Internet, and protect intellectual property rights and copyrights in Internet cafes to create a good Internet environment. They will also self-discipline themselves and encourage fair competition."
Now, this after Wikipedia states that the Chinese does not censor the Internet. I would say this skirts really close to censorship. Do we want that in America? Do we want someone telling us that that particular site is unauthorized? That particular information is vulgar? What would the left think? Someone swoops in and says, "I'm sorry, you can't pee on the Mona Lisa and call it art." I'm sorry, we've suddenly decided that homosexuality is devient behavior and it's not allowed anymore. Wow, what would the left say to that? Free speech would go down the tubes. Of course right now, free speech is in jeopardy because the right wants it, but what happens when the left wants to say something. Have they thought of that? Does China promote the homosexual agenda? I wonder.... That's what we would have if China got control of the Internet.
Another option is to give control over to the United Nations. Really? According to http://news.cnet.com/Will-the-U.N.-run-the-Internet/2010-1071_3-5780157.html several countries have weighed in with their opinions.
• Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
• Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
• China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body."
Ghana: "There was unanimity for the need for an additional body...This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N."
Let's see. Erase all of our propriety rights. It doesn't matter that we devoloped it, we invented it, and we have free speech in this country. They don't like free speech. Syria says they don't like being spammed and don't want to buy our software to stop the spam. So, develop your own software to stop the spam. Oh, we have the technology and you don't? Send some of your people to our schools. Oh, that would mean contributing to a capitalist form of government and it goes against your principals? Get over it. Brazil doesn't like the triple X sites? Don't go to them, because we don't believe in censorship. The solution isn't spread censorship to all nations, whether they want it or not. And China? I think they just said we weren't competent...they can loan us money, but we can't be trusted to run the Internet? I think we need to give them the brush off. And why they heck do we need to listen to Ghana? Their population: Population: 23,832,495. The population of Texas: Population: 22,118,509. I think Texas could just about kick your butt in a fight. Why do we need to listen to Ghana? Do they have a dog in this hunt?
So, monopoly doesn't apply in this instance. It's a matter of we know how to play fair and they don't. Do you want someone who doesn't have our principles making the rules for the game? Do you want someone who cheats telling you how to play the game? Oh, we have those people in Congress already. Well, we can fix that situation. Elect Patriots.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Who's Walking Who?
I get inspiration from every day activities sometimes. I am, afterall an average American. I'm just a mom. Today I walked my dog. I have a medium sized dog. She's a mixed breed; a beagle-Jack Russel Terrier mix. She's mostly Beagle by her actions. She'll eat anything but salad, and sleeps all day. But she's been cooped up all day in the house, all winter, because it's been too cold for ME to walk her.
That's when it hit me. Congress is so much like our dogs. We bought a small dog that we could control, as it should be, maybe even a medium sized dog. We wanted one strong enough to protect our interests. But we are still the masters. We train it. It's supposed to obey us.
While I was walking Trixie, I realized it's been so long since I walked her, she had forgotten a lot of her training. I had to keep her on a short leash with lots of corrections. She wanted to go where I didn't want her to go. But she's a fast learner. She tries to go just to the line of where I don't want her to go. I wanted her to stay off the neighbor's grass and on the sidewalks. She stopped with all four feet on the sidewalk, hung her butt over the edge of the sidewalk and marked her territory on the grass.
Congress and our illustrious President are doing the same thing. We, as Americans, have been asleep in our winter of inattention. They have forgotten their training. Now we're taking them for their first walk in a long time and they're not used to a leash. We want to keep our identy as Americans. They want another Europe. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the ocean. We know our history. You can rewrite history, but unless you plan on burning all the older history books, we already know what happened. There are too many home schoolers who have those older history books. Socialism doesn't work. We'll jerk your leash and get you back on the sidewalk.
See, the problem is, we sent a Beagle to congress to represent us, but it grew into a Pit Bull. It's out of controll and now it's taking us for a walk. We're being pulled from fire hydrant to fire hydrant, dragged along by its every whim, and we don't like it. I think maybe it's time to make a trip to the pet store and trade this vicious dog in for a better trained one. What do you think, America?
Lori Ann Smith
I fight for Freedom, until they knock me down and I can fight no more.
That's when it hit me. Congress is so much like our dogs. We bought a small dog that we could control, as it should be, maybe even a medium sized dog. We wanted one strong enough to protect our interests. But we are still the masters. We train it. It's supposed to obey us.
While I was walking Trixie, I realized it's been so long since I walked her, she had forgotten a lot of her training. I had to keep her on a short leash with lots of corrections. She wanted to go where I didn't want her to go. But she's a fast learner. She tries to go just to the line of where I don't want her to go. I wanted her to stay off the neighbor's grass and on the sidewalks. She stopped with all four feet on the sidewalk, hung her butt over the edge of the sidewalk and marked her territory on the grass.
Congress and our illustrious President are doing the same thing. We, as Americans, have been asleep in our winter of inattention. They have forgotten their training. Now we're taking them for their first walk in a long time and they're not used to a leash. We want to keep our identy as Americans. They want another Europe. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the ocean. We know our history. You can rewrite history, but unless you plan on burning all the older history books, we already know what happened. There are too many home schoolers who have those older history books. Socialism doesn't work. We'll jerk your leash and get you back on the sidewalk.
See, the problem is, we sent a Beagle to congress to represent us, but it grew into a Pit Bull. It's out of controll and now it's taking us for a walk. We're being pulled from fire hydrant to fire hydrant, dragged along by its every whim, and we don't like it. I think maybe it's time to make a trip to the pet store and trade this vicious dog in for a better trained one. What do you think, America?
Lori Ann Smith
I fight for Freedom, until they knock me down and I can fight no more.
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.
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.
Monday, February 1, 2010
President Obama is not a Bolshevik?
So, President Obama stood in front of the Republican Caucus and told them there were those calling him a Bolshevik for wanting Universal Health care. He denied the claim. Well, I had to look that term up. As an Average American, I didn't know the subtleties of that term. Bolshevik: a member of an extreme Russian Social Democratic Party; a communist.
So, I know in my gut what a socialist is, but I wanted to look up that term so I had a full understanding of that term, too. There were several slightly subtle differences in the meanings, depending on the article you looked at. I'll list all 3 that I found:
____________
1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. The stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
_____________
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods in owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist Theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
______________
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy. Others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
______________
The scariest of these is number 2 of the middle one and the last definition. We've already stated that they believe in evolution, even in theories. They believe that we are evolving into something else. We believe we are de-evolving, eroding down the chain of evolution and collapsing into chaos. The only glimmer of hope in the last definition is the fact that we know that socialism doesn't work. We have the examples of history.
Now, how did President Obama Lie? He said he's not a far left socialist. He doesn't want to control the economy with a centralized government? What would you call calling down the Supreme Court in public and saying he would go around them and reverse their decision? I would call that getting rid of the checks and balances and setting up a dictatorship. We have checks and balances written into our government on purpose, just so that one branch of government can't get stronger than the other ones. One branch can't (or isn't supposed to) be stronger than the other ones. Congress can't bully through laws without the President's OK, and the Supreme court saying it's constitutional. That's in case we have a Congress and President controlled by one party. The president can't come in, wipe out all of the Supreme court and elect a whole new one who will agree with him. Why do you think they hold that post for life? From one term through the next? Checks and balances. Do you think the far left would let a Republican president do this? What if Congress were all Republican and blocked out the few Democrats and didn't let them decide any policies, but the President were Democrat, or Socialist? Would he stand there and say, Now you Democrats need to get behind the Republicans and be bipartisan and quit stalling and let them do their job? Heck no!
So, what have been his policies this past year? He's been pushing a health care bill down America's throat and trying to tell everyone that America needs it. He started out saying that everyone wanted it. Polls show that as high as 61% of Americans don't want it. The lowest number I've seen is 57% don't want it. That's still a high percentage. He quit saying America wanted it and started saying America deserved it. So, now he's our big brother and knows better than we do what we deserve? Don't tell me I will keep my health care plan. If it changes to be an approved health care plan, maybe I don't want to keep it. Maybe I'll want to change, and I won't have the option. Maybe, because of you, Mr. President, I'll be stuck with it, because it will be taken over by the government and the only option I'll have. Government health care is a socialist agenda. Strike one.
He swooped in and took over several banks...oops bailed them out. Lets see, that means the government could tell them how to spend their money, who to lend to, how to pay their executives, when they could go on vacation, for Pete's sake. Remember that? Government take over...oops bail out, of the banks is socialist. Strike two.
He swooped in again and bailed out the car industry. They, like the banks were just too big to fail. Americans would be in too much trouble if GM failed, so our big brother, Barack Obama, and to save us. Now he gets to determine how the big guys get paid. They get too big of a bonus, it's just not fair. And have you noticed how the federal government has suddenly started recalling, through safety regulations, so many OTHER car industry's car parts, which were not bailed out? If they have to recall so many of their cars, they might need a bail out, too. Taking over private industry ... oops I mean bailing them out, is a socialist agenda. Strike three.
Now, in his State of the Union address, he wants to create a program for every American to be able to college. That's the American dream, to be able to go to college. Well, work for it. National run college now? And he's not a socialist? That's a socialist program, too. Strike four.
So, how many strikes are we going to give him before we wake up and call a pig a pig? And I'm sure I didn't even get to all of his socialist agenda. This is just the blatant ones that I see, as an average American. Go back up and look at the definitions of socialist. It's government takeover of businesses. Look at what government has done to the housing industry. Look at how the Fed controls our housing market by controlling the interest rate. I always thought the Fed was part of the Federal government....not so. They are a private company. So, socialism is against private industry, right. Look at that last one again. Some socialism doesn't mind (or tolerate) capitalism as long as the government is the dominant influence, and they are the ones who get the profit. They can milk that government cow, but no one else can. And they'll pretend they're for the little people, but they would just as soon get rid of the little people. Do you know why they don't? If they did, it would get rid of the cash cow. It's kind of like, I'll milk the cow, but do I have to touch it? Or, will someone else bait my hook for me? I don't want to touch the worm.....
I fought in the United States Navy to defend my country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I believe Socialism is an enemy of freedom and I will fight it.
Lori Ann Smith
I stand for freedom, until they knock me down and I can stand no more
So, I know in my gut what a socialist is, but I wanted to look up that term so I had a full understanding of that term, too. There were several slightly subtle differences in the meanings, depending on the article you looked at. I'll list all 3 that I found:
____________
1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. The stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
_____________
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods in owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist Theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
______________
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy. Others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
______________
The scariest of these is number 2 of the middle one and the last definition. We've already stated that they believe in evolution, even in theories. They believe that we are evolving into something else. We believe we are de-evolving, eroding down the chain of evolution and collapsing into chaos. The only glimmer of hope in the last definition is the fact that we know that socialism doesn't work. We have the examples of history.
Now, how did President Obama Lie? He said he's not a far left socialist. He doesn't want to control the economy with a centralized government? What would you call calling down the Supreme Court in public and saying he would go around them and reverse their decision? I would call that getting rid of the checks and balances and setting up a dictatorship. We have checks and balances written into our government on purpose, just so that one branch of government can't get stronger than the other ones. One branch can't (or isn't supposed to) be stronger than the other ones. Congress can't bully through laws without the President's OK, and the Supreme court saying it's constitutional. That's in case we have a Congress and President controlled by one party. The president can't come in, wipe out all of the Supreme court and elect a whole new one who will agree with him. Why do you think they hold that post for life? From one term through the next? Checks and balances. Do you think the far left would let a Republican president do this? What if Congress were all Republican and blocked out the few Democrats and didn't let them decide any policies, but the President were Democrat, or Socialist? Would he stand there and say, Now you Democrats need to get behind the Republicans and be bipartisan and quit stalling and let them do their job? Heck no!
So, what have been his policies this past year? He's been pushing a health care bill down America's throat and trying to tell everyone that America needs it. He started out saying that everyone wanted it. Polls show that as high as 61% of Americans don't want it. The lowest number I've seen is 57% don't want it. That's still a high percentage. He quit saying America wanted it and started saying America deserved it. So, now he's our big brother and knows better than we do what we deserve? Don't tell me I will keep my health care plan. If it changes to be an approved health care plan, maybe I don't want to keep it. Maybe I'll want to change, and I won't have the option. Maybe, because of you, Mr. President, I'll be stuck with it, because it will be taken over by the government and the only option I'll have. Government health care is a socialist agenda. Strike one.
He swooped in and took over several banks...oops bailed them out. Lets see, that means the government could tell them how to spend their money, who to lend to, how to pay their executives, when they could go on vacation, for Pete's sake. Remember that? Government take over...oops bail out, of the banks is socialist. Strike two.
He swooped in again and bailed out the car industry. They, like the banks were just too big to fail. Americans would be in too much trouble if GM failed, so our big brother, Barack Obama, and to save us. Now he gets to determine how the big guys get paid. They get too big of a bonus, it's just not fair. And have you noticed how the federal government has suddenly started recalling, through safety regulations, so many OTHER car industry's car parts, which were not bailed out? If they have to recall so many of their cars, they might need a bail out, too. Taking over private industry ... oops I mean bailing them out, is a socialist agenda. Strike three.
Now, in his State of the Union address, he wants to create a program for every American to be able to college. That's the American dream, to be able to go to college. Well, work for it. National run college now? And he's not a socialist? That's a socialist program, too. Strike four.
So, how many strikes are we going to give him before we wake up and call a pig a pig? And I'm sure I didn't even get to all of his socialist agenda. This is just the blatant ones that I see, as an average American. Go back up and look at the definitions of socialist. It's government takeover of businesses. Look at what government has done to the housing industry. Look at how the Fed controls our housing market by controlling the interest rate. I always thought the Fed was part of the Federal government....not so. They are a private company. So, socialism is against private industry, right. Look at that last one again. Some socialism doesn't mind (or tolerate) capitalism as long as the government is the dominant influence, and they are the ones who get the profit. They can milk that government cow, but no one else can. And they'll pretend they're for the little people, but they would just as soon get rid of the little people. Do you know why they don't? If they did, it would get rid of the cash cow. It's kind of like, I'll milk the cow, but do I have to touch it? Or, will someone else bait my hook for me? I don't want to touch the worm.....
I fought in the United States Navy to defend my country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I believe Socialism is an enemy of freedom and I will fight it.
Lori Ann Smith
I stand for freedom, until they knock me down and I can stand no more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)