"The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

**He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
**He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
**He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
**He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
**He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
**He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
**He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
**He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
**He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
**He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. (Added by me: New Offices=Czars)
**He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
**He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
**He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation (Added by me: The United Nations)
*****For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
*****For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
*****For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
*****For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
*****For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
*****For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences (Added by me: For detaining us because we have spoken against the government or belong to a group that the government has decided might commit a crime in the future but for which no crime has actually been committed.)
*****For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
*****For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
*****For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. (Added by me: For creating "Executive Powers" and appointing "Czars" both of which bypass our
Constitutionally-created Legislature and allow laws to be made without any input from those whom we have elected to represent us.)
**He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
**He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
**He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
**He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
**He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Signed by 56 brave men. Full list of signatures can be found here.

Want to know one HUGE reason I have chosen to homeschool?  Common Sense.  Or the SERIOUS lack thereof.

The point at which you are suspending a child for bringing a Lego gun to school is the point at which you should stop and re-evaluate what you are doing.

But no.  That's not enough. 

Neither was suspending a child for having bloodshot eyes from crying because his father had been murdered over the weekend.  (Which they knew...because the child's mother had called them that morning to inform them of the situation.)

Perhaps they'll re-evaluate their policies when they suspend a child for touching a pill after someone else placed it in her hand.  (Especially when they suspended her despite the fact that she immediately gave the pill BACK to the ACTUAL drug dealer...a fact which the school doesn't deny.)

Nope.  They're not done yet.  They'll keep going and give a child detention for having a piece of candy.  No.  Really.  A young girl was given detention for having a Jolly Rancher.  Unfortunately, you read that right.

Should I keep going because the stories just keep rolling in.  There are too many to count or possibly list here.  Children suspended for doing drugs because they took 2 Advil for cramps or a Tylenol for a headache.  Kids kicked out of school because they took Sudafed for a cold or Benadryl to help with allergies.  Heaven forbid a child get caught with a Claritin!  These kids should be ashamed of themselves!

But hey...at least THOSE kids aren't farting on a bus.  Or in a classroom.  That one got a kid arrested.  No.  Really.  I can't make this stuff up.  Wouldn't think to.  Because it's so far-fetched it would never have occurred to me in my wildest dreams that things like this would happen.  For the record, I believe every guy in my senior class and at least 1/2 the girls belong in jail for this same offense.  Add burping & good-heavens...I think we'd ALL have been in lock up!

One thing we should really all remember, though, is that religion doesn't belong in the schools.  An 8yr old boy learned that the hard way.  He was sent home from school and forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of a stick-figure Jesus on the cross.  Based on what this boy had to go through, I can only imagine their punishment for Mel Gibson for The Passion.  They'd have probably hung him on a cross.  Wait.

But let's not forget what really started this all.  Guns.  They're all so dangerous that no one should ever own a gun.  Guns are bad.  Guns kill people.  If no one ever owned guns, there would never be any violence because no other weapon is ever used for violence. 

I'll give you a minute to stop laughing.

You might think that as long as children didn't bring the actual weapons themselves to school then they'd be okay.  I mean, the kids who got in trouble DID have actual guns even if they were tiny guns attached to plastic green army men or a Lego gun.  If a kid were to use the imagination God gave them and pretend and make a gun with their finger, that wouldn't be bad.  You know, like when playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians?   I mean, it's JUST a finger, right? 

Ha. Ha. Ha.  That would imply sense that is not quite so common any more. A host of 6 and 7 yr old kindergarten and first grade students have gotten suspended or kicked out of school for making a weapon with their fingers.  There was the kid in Michigan, the one in Texas, and the one in Oklahoma.  I can only imagine being one of these parents and being told that my child was being suspended for this "offense".  I would probably laugh at the administrators right then and there, sure that they were joking.

Never would I imagine, though, that a slice of pizza would get a kid suspended.  That'll show HIM for getting the pepperoni!  I sincerely hope he learns his lesson as he sits there in silence learning how to socialize with other children.

Wait.

I feel certain after reading this that my children wouldn't survive even one day in public school. 

My son would make a finger gun while farting and eating a jolly rancher.  And drinking a cup of coffee.  Which alone would probably get him life in prison at 9.  Based on what I find regularly when doing laundry, he'd end up at school with rocks, Legos, dog food, and a fork in his pocket.  And possibly a half-eaten pb&j that may or may not be in the shape of a gun.  During math, he'd draw a picture of monsters, dragons, or aliens (or some combination of the 3) battling.  With guns.

And that's just my son.

Which is why we homeschool.

I just read a thought-provoking article on CNN about 8 Other Things the Government Should Ban.  I'd like to add to this list.

First and foremost should be the banning of anyone smoking within 100 yards of a building.  Poison yourself and your loved ones somewhere else, please.  I don't smoke.  I have made the conscious decision to NOT poison my children with cigarette smoke (I much prefer to do so with food from McDonald's).  I have made the decision not to poison myself with cigarette smoke (chocolate tastes MUCH better).  So please...take your poison of choice elsewhere.  I don't force you to eat McDonald's or chocolate.  I'd like the same respect, please.

TVs in vans & various gas-guzzling vehicles.  First, it's just pretentious to have a TV in your vehicle and thereby single-handedly make me look like a bad parent for not giving the same to my child. There's nothing more degrading as a parent than your children asking you to move the car a little to the left so they can see the movie in someone else's vehicle.   Nevermind that I'm also trying to watch the movie.  While driving.  Could you also please not speed?  I don't know how I'm going to explain to the cop who pulls me over that the reason I was speeding was so I could keep up with your van because the movie that I was watching while driving was so interesting.  But I digress...

Having a clean car without stickers on the window if you are a parent.  I mean come ON!  First you've got the TV in your van and now you tell me that it's ALSO free of randomly-placed window stickers and crayon marks?  What do you do...put your children in straight jackets while you're driving?  Wait.  You have a TV in your car to keep them occupied.  Nevermind. 

I'm sure there are more things we could think of to ban.  If we don't, the government will so we might as well beat them to the punch.

What would you ban?

This isn't what you think it's going to be.  No.  Really.  It's not.  You might not even like me very much after I say what I'm going to say. 

Americans...I am ashamed by you.

As if it wasn't enough that there were such deplorable people as those at Westboro Baptist...there are those who think themselves so much better than those at Westboro that they have the right to threaten to KILL those of Westboro simply because they do not agree with their speech or their actions.

Really, people?  Really?

OUR response to people who are behaving in a reprehensible manner in the name of Christ...is to threaten to KILL them just because we don't agree with their speech or their actions?

Don't get me wrong.  I DO think those of Westboro are behaving in a reprehensible manner.  What they are doing is nothing close to Christ-like. 

However, someone ELSE'S reprehensible behavior does not excuse OURS.  And I DO find threatening to KILL someone utilizing an object that your 2nd amendment rights guarantee you JUST BECAUSE they are exercising THEIR 1st amendment rights to be reprehensible.

Here, I'll say it again.  Reprehensible.

Voltaire once said, "I disagree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  I find that appropriate here.  I don't agree with what Westboro Baptist does or says, but I DO defend their Constitutional right to say it.

I want you to remember if you watch this video that it was from July 2008.  The sexual assaults pat-downs have gotten worse since then...and got even worse on November 1st.  If you're feeling left out because your airport isn't yet doing the invasive 3rd-base "I need a cigarette after it" pat-down, have no fear.  They're rolling it out in phases to all airports across the US.

Everyone had their own opinion about the body scanners.  Some simply argued because it would give you unnecessary doses of x-rays.  Others were up in arms because they could see you naked.  Still others were uncomfortable with the fact that they could see you naked but were willing to live with it since (if) the data couldn't be recorded in any way.

My first though was, "Really?  Do you really believe that they don't have AND maintain the ability to record &/or transmit the images?  Really?"  Have we become THAT naive as a nation?  I mean REALLY?

Sigh.

I guess we have.

Yes.  That means that I am calling you naive if you don't think that airports have AND maintain the ability to store and transmit the images they take.

I don't understand what the problem is with looking at something as it actually is.  Why did the TSA feel the need to lie to us?  Did they think that if they told us the truth in the beginning that we would be all up in arms?  Here's what I tell my kids:  If you think you'll have a hard time telling me the truth about something you're thinking about doing then you probably shouldn't be doing what you're thinking about doing.  Perhaps the government would be wise to adhere to that?  It seems to have helped my kids.  The Bible DOES say that a child will lead them....

There's that other thing I tell them too:  If you do what's right, you have nothing to fear.  The TSA was clearly afraid of the response from the American people if it was forthright and honest in the beginning.  They chose instead to lie.  Out of fear.  If they were doing what was right, then they would have had nothing tof ear.  Again, this has worked well for my kids...

What?  Did you just say that the TSA and/or the government has LIED?  When?  Where?  About what?  You'll have to excuse me for a minute as I finish laughing.  The government lying?  Yeah.  I see that as a total impossibility too.  The government always NEVER lies.  Ever. 

Where & what did they lie about?  Well, first...well...I can't exactly recall the FIRST time the government lied so lets narrow it down a bit.  The first time the government and the TSA lied about the scanners was when they said they were necessary and would stop terrorism.  I don't believe they will.  I believe they're just another intrusion into our privacy.

But I digress.

They then proceeded to lie about what the scanners could do.  They said (and I quote), "The scanners do not have the ABILITY to store or transmit information".

Let's analyze that statement for a minute.  They have a hard drive.  K.  On to my next level of analysis.  Part of the FUNCTION and DAILY OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE of the scanners is to take the picture which is deemed clear by a person at the security gate and TRANSMIT it to someone off-site either in a different part of the airport or an actual off-site location for verification before that person is cleared.  Hmm.  How can something with a hard drive not have the ability to store something?  How could something that TRANSMITS the information it receives as a REGULAR part of it's DAILY operational procedure NOT have the ability to...um...gee...I don't know...TRANSMIT something?

Call me crazy.  Call me silly, but this reminds me of the 2yr old with chocolate all over his hands and face claiming that he didn't eat a cookie from the cookie jar.  Um.  REALLY?  You're SURE you want to stick with that story?

Oh but wait!  They don't.  You see, people like me called them on the carpet and said, "Really?  Do we REALLY look like idiots to you?"  As a result they admitted that their machines DID in fact have the ABILITY to STORE AND TRANSMIT the information it received.  However, those capabilities on each machine are disabled before the machine is even delivered to the airport.  (Hey, Mr. TSA...You still transmitting those pictures to an off-site location as a part of your daily operational prodcedure?  Just checking.  P.S.-You've still got some cookie on your face.)

Now back to that ability to STORE photos...that isn't used...Someone forgot to tell that to security personnel at a Florida court house.  They weren't supposed to have the ability to store or transmit photos either.  Yet they managed to save 35,000 of them; 100 of which were just leaked to the public.  I'll admit that those scanners aren't quite up to par with TSA scanners.  The point is still there, though.  They weren't supposed to save...yet they DID.

Let's be real here.  We know that your employees CAN (and likely do) store photos.  We already know they're transmitted because that's part of your daily procedure.  What do the computers to which the information is transmitted have the capability to store?   If we start with any other assumption, then we're assuming that the Titanic can't sink.  And we all know how well THAT went.  They KNEW that they didn't have the "ABILITY" to sink.  As a result, they didn't have proper safety procedures in place.  Had they ADMITTED that they had the ABILITY to do what they DID have the ABILITY to do (and ultimately did), then they would have had the proper safety procedures in place to prevent what happened and/or save the passengers in the event of a breach.

If we START OUT looking at something and saying that it doesn't have the ABILITY to do what it DOES have the ability to do, then we are starting out fools and will be improperly prepared to prevent a breach and protect ourselves from danger should one happen.

You see, TSA, there are more reasons for honesty than I think even YOU realize.

We've been studying the Constitution lately in our homeschool.  You always wonder if your children have really "gotten" what you've been teaching them.  It's often not until you see them apply it to real life or talk about it outside of school that you know they really absorbed what they've been learning.

Here are some recent conversations that have taken place at our house:

Mom (That would be me, but it's so much more fun to talk about yourself in 3rd person isn't it? Anyways...)
Mom:  Who spilled nearly half the box of Rice Krispies on the kitchen floor and didn't pick them up?
Kirstie:  Not me (Uh. Oh.  This is sounding eerily familiar...)
Whitney:  It wasn't me.
Trey:  I'll need to plead the 7th.
Mom:  The 7th?
(Oldest daughter leans over and whispers into her brother's ear.)
Trey:  I mean the 5th.
Mom:  Ah.  I see.  Why would that be?
Trey:  Mom!  The Constitution protects me from having to admit that I did something wrong!
Mom:  Sigh.  (Can you really argue when it's clear they are at least learning what you've been teaching them in school?  Frankly, I thought it was a brilliant defense.)  Okay, dear future attorney of mine.  Go pick up the Rice Krispies off the floor.
Trey:  But...
Mom:  Do you really want to argue with me on this?  How's this one?  The Lord told me that YOU are the child who is to pick up the Rice Krispies off of the floor, and the Bible says to honor your mother and your father.  The Bible ALWAYS trumps the Constitution in our house! 
Trey:  (Sighs then walks off to pick up the Rice Krispies.)

Or there's this one:

Son:  I want a .38 for Christmas.
Dad:  You mean the gun?
Son:  Yeah!  Like the revolving type with the snobby nose that you want!
Mom:  I thought you wanted Webkinz.
Son:  I DO!  I want Webkinz AND a .38 revolving gun.
Mom:  (The party-pooper of the bunch.  Apparently.) I'm fairly certain that you can't own a revolver at 8, son.
Son:  I read the Constitution!  It doesn't say ANYTHING about how old I have to be!  It just says I have the right to own a gun!  So I want one for Christmas!
Mom:  You're not getting a gun for Christmas.
Son:  Then you're violating my Constitutional rights.
Mom (to Dad):  This one's yours.  I'm out of ideas here.  (And again, I'm actually quite impressed with his understanding of the Constitution.  That's what we get for raising Constitutionalists, I guess.)

Remember that gun he wanted?  Now let's talk about the Sasquatch...

Son:  Dad, when can we go hunting?
Dad:  I'm not sure son.  We'll have to see if we can work something out.
Son:  Well it has to be after Christmas.
Dad:  Oh yeah?  Why?
Son:  Because then I'll have my gun and can shoot sasquatch.
Dad:  I'm fairly certain the government doesn't issue hunting tags for sasquatch.  Especially not with a .38...
Son:  Well!  If they give me any problems, I'll just remind them that I have the Constitutional right to shoot sasquatch!
Dad:  I guess I missed that part in the Constitution.
Son:  Well why would they tell you that you can have guns if you can't use them to kill sasquatch!  That's just dumb!
Mom:  (Sits on the bed amused at the conversation taking place.  And doing my best to stay out of it.  Because truthfully, I don't remember what the Constitution says about sasquatch, but I do know that my son makes a lot of sense!)

And have I mentioned the speedy trial by his PEERS yet?  Ahem.  I am more convinced now than ever that God has called this child to be an attorney.

Mom:  Son!  You left the milk out on the counter again!  It's been here all day!  You're going to have to pay $4 to replace it!
Son: What about my trial?
Mom: Come again?
Son:  My trial!  The Constitution says I get a trial with a bunch of my peers deciding if your discipline is okay or not.
Mom:  (Trying desperately not to snicker.)  Son.  That didn't mean that you got a trial every time you disobeyed and your parents disciplined you.
Son:  It doesn't specify WHAT it's for!  If you're going to punish me, then I want a trial by my peers!
Mom: Okay then.  (yells upstairs)  GIRLS!!!  Come down here please!
Son:  Why are you calling them?
Mom:  When you're a kid, your siblings are your peers.
Son:  GREAT!  I don't have a CHANCE!!  (And he didn't.)

What's sad is that I'm fairly certain my son has a better handle on the Constitution than most of those in charge of upholding it do.

Yesterday, I ranted about iris scanners.  Well, it wasn't really a rant about the iris scanners themselves...more about the threat made by Jeff Carter, the CDO of GRI, the largest manufacturer and distributor of iris scanners.  His threat?  If we don't accept the technology, we'll be flagged as bad people.  Okay, so that's an Amy interpretive paraphrase, but you get the point.  Basically, you're either with him and his technology or you're not...and if you're not...then you're clearly a bad person.

I didn't really discuss iris scanners themselves...and I'd like to now.  What do YOU think of iris scanners?  Are they the wave of the future or big brother gone too far?  I've heard cries that this is the mark of the beast.  Is it?  Or will that come in the form of microchip technology on our hand or forehead (as many believe based on what's written in the Bible).


Would you accept this technology?  Just in airports and government buildings?  In hospitals?  As a regular part of your everyday life in stores, gas stations, literally everywhere you go?  If you would accept it, where would you draw the line?  Or would you?  Why?

Feel free to comment here or on my Facebook or Twitter.

Forget the mosque for a minute.  Let's just for a minute or two put away the Constitution.  Maybe even...if you're bored...you could just go ahead and crumple it up now.  You'll probably want to use it later for toilet paper...You know, when you can't buy it because you opted-out of having your life recorded via your iris by GRI (Global Rainmakers Inc.)

Sorry.  I'll try to slow down.  I'm just so...Enraged?  Speechless?  Not sure...I'm just...Let's just say that it takes a WHOLE lot to render ME speechless...yet that's EXACTLY what's happened thanks to this not-so-lovely article.

I'm not surprised at what the article said.  I've heard of iris-scanning technology before.  I have NO DOUBT that it's already in use in the US at high-security companies.  It's no surprise that they are starting this in Mexico.  If they tried to start it here without first proving how "great" it is somewhere else, the people of the US would revolt.  Some would agree to it, but many on ALL sides of the political fence would fight it; many to the death.

So what's got me so bothered?  It's the not-very-well-veiled threat in there; the "warning" from Jeff Carter the CDO of GRI:

"And he has a warning for those thinking of opting out: 'When you get masses of people opting-in, opting out does not help. Opting out actually puts more of a flag on you than just being part of the system. We believe everyone will opt-in.'"

Really?  You're going to THREATEN me?  Mr. Carter, I think you would do well to advise with some PR reps before writing your next article if you intend to convince ANYONE to follow your technology.  Granted, I'm glad you weren't smart enough to think of that ahead of time.  Really?  You can create the massive digital technology that's going to SAVE US ALL, but you can't for a minute think that it's not a good idea to THREATEN the public if they don't agree with you and adhere to your program?

Mr. Carter, your arrogance will get you NO WHERE with most of us in the US.  No where.  Try again.  Actually, please don't.  You're not selling anything I ever want to buy!

Really, California?  Really with the fruit?  Again?  Really?  For those who don't know, I briefly twittered about the border patrol in California that is doing a suberb job of protecting the people of California from out-of-state fruits.   

(Not so good a job at protecting people from illegals from other countries who run into cars filled with children on the highway and then flee the scene, but I digress.)

They are, however, EXCELLENT at protecting the people of California from fresh fruits, vegetables, and raw dairy products.  Which is kind of ironic if you think about it because a good portion of our nation's produce is grown IN California...and good portion of that is organic.  Kind of doesn't make sense, does it?

Anyways...back at the end of June, they raided the Rawesome Foods Co-op warehouse in Venice, CA.  No one's quite sure why, though.

Perhaps they're just bored?  Find the fruit easier to tame than people coming illegally from another country?  The fruit charge more for day labor?

Who knows?

For the record, it is not illegal to sell raw milk or raw milk products in California.  (For info on the raw milk laws in your area, check out Real Milk courtesy of the Weston Price Foundation.)

So...if it's not illegal to grow or sell produce and it's not illegal to manufacture or sell raw milk or raw milk products, then what was the problem?  Surely there must be SOME logic to it, though, right? Please tell me there is.  I cannot for the life of me imagine what that logic might be, but I have to believe that somehow, someway there is a logical reason for them raiding a raw foods health store with their GUNS DRAWN!!!



I guess that kind of makes sense, though.  I remember that robbery last spring when a band of rabid strawberries stormed into a bank like a S.W.A.T team and took everyone down with their automatic weapons.  Or maybe it was because of that hoard of raw milk jugs and raw yogurt containers that went throughout LA randomly attacking people without provocation? Yup.  DEFINITELY a reason to go into a health food store with RAW fruits, veggies, and dairy products ready to defend yourself against the heavily armed produce and dairy products.  Definitely a reason.

Thank goodness we have the police to protect us from that nasty, chemical-infested, rabid, gun-toting raw, organic food!

(You can find detailed info on the raid and the charges directly from the owner of Rawesome Foods himself here.)

Seriously? Seriously?  Have we really become a nation that operates without using our brains?  Without using common sense?

A boy made a hat honoring the military and wore it to school.  They do not have an anti-hat policy so he was safe.  They do, however, have a zero common sense tolerance policy.  The boy was informed that his hat (which included toy soldiers with guns) was in violation of their zero tolerance policy...because it had guns...on the plastic toy soldiers.

See the hat for yourself:



What do you think?  Did the school go to far?

That would be the logical thing to deduct, right?  Seriously.  Why else would an over-bearing government institution BAN them in it's hallowed halls?

Honestly, where are we today as a society that we must BAN a silicone bracelet from our school buildings.  Not just the classrooms, mind you, but they're not allowed in the schools.  Period.  Because they are evil.  Okay, so maybe they didn't call them "evil", but clearly they are.  I mean, come on!  When was the last time YOU were able to get a bracelet to go into a fun animal shape, put said bracelet on your arm, and then get said bracelet to go BACK into that animal shape?  Clearly, there is something demonic going on with these bracelets.

I know.  I appear all hip and cool for knowing what Silly Bandz are.  Time for the truth.  I ONLY know what they are thanks to my good friends at Google.  They led me to Mommy Message who enlightened my incredibly un-hip self.   (That link is for you other totally-not-up-with-the-times moms like myself.)  Apparently Silly Bandz are the latest craze.

Who knew?

Apparently the school districts, that's who.  They've come to save our children from themselves!  They saw this craze and thought that if they didn't stop this craze dead in its tracks, they'd have a mutiny on its hands!  The kids would be crazy with distraction from these bracelets.  They might think about something OTHER than the teacher droning mindlessly on.  (Oh COME ON!  You KNOW you had that thought at least once during Geometry.  I did.  Hmmm  Maybe that's why I got my first and only "C" in that class.  But I digress.)

Seriously, people? Seriously.  Remember the slap bracelets of long ago?  I don't mean remember their resurgence in the '90's or the 2000's.  I mean remember when they originally came out.  What can I say?  I'm an original type of girl.  That, and I'm old.

Here's what's amazing about those slap bracelets of long, long ago (back in the dark ages or so...like before the internet):  Save for my "C" in geometry (which was really more related to my ineptitude at geometry rather than any bracelet), there was no long-term damage seen from us having those bracelets on our arms during school time.

I seem to be pretty normal.  (Stop laughing.)

Seriously, though.  What kind of a people are we today that we have to ban kids from having a bracelet on their arm during school hours?  We were just as distracted/distracting with our slap bracelets!  I remember sitting in class slapping my arm repeatedly with said bracelet.  I remember my best friend sticking her arm out by my desk to which I responded by slapping her arm with my bracelet.  She returned the favor with her bracelet when I stuck my arm out in her direction.  I think we'd both be charged with assault today.

What do the schools plan to do?  Do they not realize that no matter how much they ban these stupid silly bandz that kids will STILL be distracted in school?

Are they planning on taking away their pens, pencils, & paper too?  They'd better!  Otherwise, kids will doodle!  Some kids actually listen BETTER if they are keeping their hands busy.  It doesn't mean they're not learning!  Are they planning on banning thought?  If they don't, then kid's minds will wander!  Are they going to ban books?  If not, kids like me who learn better by reading than by hearing are still going  to spend the lecture time reading the material instead of listening to it.  Kids WILL be distracted!  It does NOT mean they're not learning!

Seriously, folks!

Do we not realize that kids can be kids and STILL learn?  I know it's a novel concept today, but really...can we try?  For the sake of the kids?

Or we could just make them all sit naked in empty, cold isolation rooms instead.  That way, NOTHING will distract them.  Not even the teacher.  Oh.  Wait.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh. I have been informed by certain parties that if I were a real Christian then I would do everything the government asks of me in the name of the Lord. (So as to remain a good witness, of course.) Well, I CERTAINLY don't want to be a bad witness. Instead, I've decided I WILL answer every single question asked of me in the census; even if I get the long form.

Honestly, though, I'm a little concerned. Last year, they sent a survey around called the American Community Survey. It was...shall we say...a little (as in majorly) invasive. I tried my best to be up front & honest when the census worker came because we hadn't answered the paper survey. I felt like they weren't too pleased with my answers for some reason, though. I cannot for the life of me imagine why. Here's a snippet of my answers:

Kids? Wow! That's such a hard number to come up with. Did you want the number of times we've TRIED to conceive kids or the details of when we were successful?

Ancestry? Hmmm. Does bi-polar paranoid schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder fit into that category? Not that we have any of that here.

Profession? Which day of the week and which hour of that day? I have approximately 4,586 titles. Would you like them all? Did I mention multiple-personality disorder yet?

Number of years we've lived WHERE? Oh. Here? Which time? Cause I lived here yesterday. And I live here today, but I'm not sure if I'll still live here tomorrow. You know what they say. Don't count your chickens until you put off till tomorrow what you could have done today. Or something like that.

Previous addresses? How long do you have?

You want a GPS reading? Of my front door? The front door of my car? The front door of my house? Or the other front door of my house? Or the other one? I have 3. My house has multiple front door disorder.

Sexual orientation? I think that's kind of private, but I love it when my husband does...What? Why are you stopping me? YOU asked!

Toilets that flush? Why? Do you need to use the restroom? No? Then why do you ask? Did my son pee in the front yard again?

Do we have weapons? Why? What did they tell you? Did you see something? I left the shovel out again, didn't I? Great. Now I have to...Why are you looking at me like that? What did I say? Multiple personality disorder? Where'd you get an idea like that?

Wait! Where are you going? You still have so many questions that I haven't answered...

Perhaps this year will be better? I can't wait.

...and the census taker wants to taketh away all of your info.

I get it. I'm no Shakespeare. Humor me, okay? Or laugh at me...or pity me...or something. Just don't give the census taker all of your information. Or your first-born child. I hear they'll take either.

What info are you required to give a census taker? Let's go to the "Bible" (so to speak) of the US: the Constitution of the United States of America.

First, we'll go to Article 1, Section 2:

"...The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years..."

Now, let's go to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment where they updated & amended Article 1, Section 2 to account for the prohibition of slavery:

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."

Perhaps you could help me. I'm having trouble finding where we have the Constitutional obligation to answer anything other than how many people reside at our household.

So...THAT is the one question that we will answer.

I love it when I can see, first-hand, my tax money being put to good use. I mean nothing says "good use of money" like sending out a useless letter to inform someone that they'll be getting something in a week.

Seriously? You're sending me a letter to tell me that in one week I'll be getting something? Really? Imagine if companies operated that way. On the 1st of every month, they'd send out a letter to inform my husband that he'll get paid on the 15th. No company would do that! They'd see that as a complete & total waste of money.

I've got it! The US government was trying to single-handedly revive the United States Postal Service. Forget mailing something ONCE to every household in America! We'll mail TWO things!

I remember the same thing happening a couple of years ago when the government was sending us money that our great great grandchildren will be repaying. They sent a letter to inform us that our check would be coming in a month.

Again. Really? Is someone bored? Wanted to stuff envelopes? Just had too much taxpayer money laying around?

And one more time: Seriously?

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

**He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
**He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
**He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
**He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
**He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
**He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
**He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
**He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
**He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
**He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. (Added by me: New Offices=Czars)
**He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
**He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
**He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation (Added by me: The United Nations)
*****For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
*****For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
*****For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
*****For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
*****For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
*****For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences (Added by me: For detaining us because we have spoken against the government or belong to a group that the government has decided might commit a crime in the future but for which no crime has actually be committed.)
*****For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
*****For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
*****For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. (Added by me: For creating "Executive Powers" and appointing "Czars" both of which bypass our
Constitutionally-created Legislature and allow laws to be made without any input from those whom we have elected to represent us.)
**He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
**He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
**He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
**He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
**He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Signed by 56 brave men. Full list of signatures can be found here.

For worried family members, I thought I would clarify my current status as a gun owner (or not).

While I do staunchly support the rights of anyone to own a weapon and conceal such weapon per the 2nd Amendment, I do not currently own a handgun for my own personal use as a concealed carry weapon. Yes. I said handgun.

I do own a shotgun (okay...DH does) that he intends to use for hunting. I also have a FANTASTIC bbgun (okay...daughter does) that she doesn't use for hunting (unless you count used water bottles). :-)

Feel better, Nana & Gma & Gpa? Sorry. I should have warned you or posted this note BEFORE you began having nightmares of me "carrying" while out with our kids.

I am not saying that I will never own a handgun for my own personal use as a concealed carry weapon. I'm just saying I do not currently own one. I'll have my Kitchen Aid or Bosch mixer before I have that! So you can feel better for the time being.

I do own a mean can of mace that I carry on my purse, though. So dream away about THAT!

-Me

On June 19th, Limalife posted an instructional video for moms who carry...guns and babies. She knew there would be some who would have a problem with it, but figured there'd be enough moms who needed the info to justify posting the video.

She herself has since said she had NO idea how much this video would blow up! It's become viral of sorts. I felt it only right to do my part and encourage that. (The viralness of the video, not the controversy.)
As I've said many times before, I am a STAUNCH supporter of the 2nd amendment. Gun permit? I have one...it's called the 2nd Amendment.

For those moms who are interested, the video is below. You can also find it on YouTube if you prefer to view it there.

I am aware that some of you reading my blog won't agree with this woman nor myself and our stance regarding the 2nd Amendment and the right of moms to carry...whether they have a baby or not. That's okay.

You have the right disagree, and as always, you're more than welcome to let me know of your disagreement either by commenting here or e-mailing me.

-Me

Occasionally, I'll come across a blog post that inspires me. Usually, it's about a new resolution before Congress and is full of the rumors regarding what that bill does or doesn't contain. I'm inspired by that blog to find the truth, and will head to Open Congress to find it by reading the actual resolution myself.

Today, though, I was directed to a blog that was written so well, I find I can do no better than them. They're not saying anything profound, but rather posing profound questions. I'd encourage you to consider them.

My thanks to Veda at Purple Oak Politics for a well-written blog!

"Here’s a question:
Do we have a right to liberty?

Here is part of a quote (author will remain anonymous): '…I understand that people want liberties, but creating some national standards enforced by the Federal Government I think are necessary while others are handled better by the individual states…'

Here’s the question, do we merely want liberties? Are we to ask our government for liberties? Is it our governments place to decide on our liberties? Does the Constitution grant us liberty?

Or.. were we born with liberty? and if that is so, then is it justified for any governing body to interfere with, infringe upon or devalue that liberty? When you are born, who owns you?

…and finally, what does liberty actually mean? If it is different for everyone does that promote anarchy? Or does a society need to be regulated in order to ensure
proper behavior.

Is a society capable of moral and ethical behavior without a central governing body enforcing guidelines and providing a definition of said “moral behavior”?

Do the vast majority of people need herding (as sheeple) in order to do the 'right' thing? And who defines what is 'right?'

What say ye?"

What say I? That sometimes it's only in posing the right questions that we find the right answers.

Your thoughts?

-Me

...because her son has refused chemo and she and her husband are supporting his decision. You can read more here.

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I am a STAUNCH supporter of parental rights.

I also STRONGLY believe that those rights extend to being able to dictate your child's healthcare (or lack thereof). We were initialy delayed vax parents. However, after years of being unable to obtain the separate serum vaccinations that would be best for our children, we have unofficially become non-vaxing parents. I reserve the right to refuse vaccinations for my children. When they are adults and have stronger immune systems then they can decide for themselves whether they want to receive those vaccinations or not.

I believe parents also have the right to choose alternative healthcare for their children if they deem it necessary (or better than "traditional" treatments) after research.

Certainly even if one doesn't believe in parental rights, then they believe in the rights of the child...right? That's what many in leadership are fighting for as they push for ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They claim that the child has more rights than the parent and should get to dictate what they do and don't do with their lives whether their parents agree or not.

So...going on THAT horrendous argument for a minute...this child (of 13) is wanting to refuse the chemo for HIMSELF and instead elect to have alternative treatments. Therefore, he should get what he wants because he's the child and he has rights.

In other words, whether you support parent's rights or children's rights, you should support the decision being made jointly by the son and his parents to refuse chemo.

Note, they are NOT refusing treatments, they are merely choosing an alternative treatment. Could it have side effects? Yes...as any treatment (ESPECIALLY chemo) could and does. Could it work? Yes. An alternative treatment might work as well as or better than chemo. Could it fail? ABSOLUTELY!!! As could chemo, radiation, bone marrow transplants, etc. ANY treatment could work or fail based on the body of the person receiving the treatment and any other underlying conditions they may have.

Chemo as a treatment is a CHOICE!!! Just as any other treatment is. No child or parent should be forced to obtain a treatment because a doctor, social worker, or judge feels they should obtain a certain treatment!

This is a DANGEROUS road that we do NOT want to go down!

-Me