Showing posts with label Politics and Politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics and Politicians. Show all posts


Independence Day defines "independence" as freedom from control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others. It gives "freedom" as a synonym.

What is "freedom"? It is defined as being "exemption from external control, interference, regulation...and the list goes on". Among its many definitions are also, "a liberty taken" and "civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government". also lists the synonyms "freedom", "independence", and "liberty" as referring to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one's rights and powers. It says that "independence" implies not only lack of restrictions, but also the ability to stand alone, unsustained by anything else.

I think understanding the definitions of these words is important. No, I think it's vital.

Far too many have given up their liberties, their freedoms, and their independence for dependence on our government. And they like it that way. Many would like more dependence on our government through government health care and/or insurance, government control of banks and auto companies, and government oversight of anything the government can find to regulate.

This is not the country our founding fathers intended for us to have. This is not the country many fought and died for.

I'm reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin, "He who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither and will lose both."

When most of us think of July 4th, we think grilled hot dogs, potato salad, and fireworks.

Is that what the Founding Fathers thought of when they celebrated July 4th? Were they thinking of fireworks as a way to have fun with their family? Or did they have a long, hard fought battle for independence from Britain on their minds?

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress ratified the Declaration of Independence. It was the start of our nation. The start of our freedom. The start of our independence from an overbearing government who made decisions on behalf of the States without proper representation.

What happened? Do we still have that freedom? That independence? Are we properly represented now? I know we HAVE representatives, but are they truly representing us? Resolutions are put before Congress, the public demands they be voted down, and then they pass? That doesn't sound like true respresentation to me.

In the spirit of commemorating that day 237 years ago, I'd like to deliver a Declaration of my own to the United States government. I can't take credit for this Declaration, though. It was written 237 years ago by Thomas Jefferson on my behalf.

Only now, I'd like to ask the United States government; regardless of party, to take it as a letter THEY need to heed. They need to look at this and remember why our country was created. Why our independence was sought. And what the grievances were against the British government. They need to remember what the States were seeking when they declared independence. They didn't want to break off from Britain, but they found they had no choice after fighting and trying for years to obtain proper representation for the States.

This Declaration was not made lightly. They deliberated and fought among themselves before they finally agreed to declare their independence. They did so only because they truly felt like they had no other choice. They had tried many times to resolve their differences peacefully.

I'd like the current United States government to note that we, as the American people, are trying to peacefully resolve our differences with them. We are desperately screaming out for them to listen! We want them to hear that our government has gone astray and we need to do something NOW...before it's too late.

Please, take a moment from your fireworks today and think about that first July 4th. Then, think about where we are now. Think about what will happen if we do not restore the proper balance of power to our government...and quickly!

"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,
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
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.


Is Snowden the Enemy?

A Facebook friend said that it's the job of those in government to keep their mouth's shut. He doesn't see people like Snowden as heroes. Instead, he says they nothing more than people with no self-control who can't be trusted.

I disagree. Long ago, a group of men bravely declared their independence from an overbearing government that had begun to rule them without proper representation.  Their words are worth reading again:  The Declaration of Independence

We are not called to be loyal to our government. The government, which consists of people who have been hired by the people are called to be loyal to the people upon whom their jobs depend. They are called to represent US; not the other way around.  When they do not, then they should be called to accountability for that.

I think we have forgotten the government's role. We have so willingly handed them full control forgetting that THEY are supposed to represent US. I'll say it one more time. The government is supposed to represent the people. NOT the other way around.

And in the Snowden/NSA case:  The NSA's actions very clearly violate the 4th Amendment of our Constitution.  It's cut and dry, in my opinion. I also find it absolutely ludicrous that our government would file espionage charges against Snowden. Irony, anyone? I mean, seriously? Pot, meet kettle.

Okay. I'll stop now.

But I mean really...


On The Importance of a Comma

I read an enlightening article last night on Yahoo News.  It appears as if our president is a cross-dresser.  Specifically, he likes dresses from Gap.

You can see the entire article on Yahoo Shine.  Let me quote a specific section for you:
"On Friday, Obama left for Camp David with the president wearing a blue-patterned dress from the Gap."
This sentence proclaims, quite boldly I might add, that the president left for Camp David on Friday while wearing a blue-patterned dress from the Gap. 

The sentence would have been entirely different had they simply put a comma after the word "president".  Doing so would have then indicated that another Obama (Michelle would be assumed in this case) went to Camp David with the president...and that the OTHER person (as opposed to the president) was wearing the aforementioned blue-patterned dress from the Gap.

Who knows?  Maybe the absence of a comma was intentional because the author knows something that we don't.  Perhaps President Obama is attempting to reach out to cross-dressers in his own personal way.

Or perhaps they just forgot a comma.


The Milk Fight

Raw milk.

And now let the fighting begin. 

No.  Really.  Let's fight about milk.  It seems to be one of the government's favorite fights.  Let's gather up all of those horrible farmers who own cows, are milking them, and are selling the milk.  The HORROR!

The Washington Times recently put out an incredibly biased piece about one such fight involving a farmer in Pennsylvania who was daring to sell his raw milk across state lines.

I love how they list everything that COULD happen if you drink raw milk and barely list one instance where raw milk can be better than pasteurized milk. 

Here's the bottom line for me:  It should be our choice.  WE should decide whether we or our families drink raw or pasteurized milk.  Heck, we should have the choice to purchase someone's CAT'S milk if we so desire!  It should be OUR choice...not one the government forces upon us.  Nor should we have to jump through numerous hoops & regulations (or drive 3 hours) just to obtain raw milk if we choose to drink it! 

While they're listing stats about bad things that could happen to you, I'd also like them to include the stats for those who get sick from the over-processed food and chemicals masquerading as food that they sell in the grocery stores.  Or how about the numbers from those sickened due to poisons put in food manufactured in China?  From chemicals they spray in the air?  On our food?  Try to get us to take or inject into our bodies?  I could go on.  I think the raw milk is the least of our worries!  (For the record, I am not completely against immunizations or medicines.  I rely on a heart medicine daily.  However, I believe we should FULLY understand ALL of the risks to everything we put in or on our bodies.  That way, we are TRULY making an informed choice...and not one that someone else has forced upon us.  The only thing I am 100% against as far as immunizations go is a parent making a choice to give or not give said shots without first understanding ALL of the risks involved both in choosing and rejecting them.)

I will ALWAYS err on the side of an individual making the choice for him/her self regarding what goes in or on their bodies.  I don't believe the government has the Constitutional right (or moral right) to tell US what we can or can't do with our own bodies. (The only exception being a person having the right to kill someone ELSE who is living IN her body.  You don't get to decide for someone ELSE'S body any more than THEY would or should get to decide for YOURS! Nevermind that murder is ALREADY illegal yet not being enforced when a mom is choosing to murder her own child.  But that's a horse for another thread...)

I just don't understand why this raw milk "issue" is even up for debate.  It's MILK.  If you're interested in obtaining raw milk, Real Milk lists the sources for raw milk in each state and various countries.

Want to do more research?
  • Real Milk and Raw Milk Facts have information on the health benefits of raw milk and why you should drink it over pasteurized milk.
  • The CDC will tell you everything bad that could possibly happen if you drink raw milk.
Please keep in mind that I am NOT against you choosing to drink pasteurized milk.  I simply believe that you should only make that choice after becoming informed.  Regardless of what you eat yourself or feed your family, you should only do so after first researching that food item so you are making an informed choice.  (Notice I didn't just give you the site stating the benefits of raw milk.  I gave you the site that will tell you the bad stuff too because I feel you should know THAT as well so you can make an informed choice about drinking raw milk.)  An informed choice can only happen when one knows the benefits AND the risks to their decision.

We DO drink raw milk and eat raw milk products in our family and have for years.  At one point, we only consumed raw goat milk products.  However, I would never advise you to make any changes to how your family eats without fully understanding the risks and benefits of that change.  You should never make the decision to do or not to do something simply because ONE person said so.  Do the research yourself!

And above all, I would encourage you to join us in the fight to gain the choice to decide for ourselves how we feed our family.  How?  Contact your state representatives (this is a state issue) and tell them that you want the right to choose for yourself whether your family drinks raw milk or not and ask them to work towards making it legal to sell and consume it in your state if it isn't already.  (You can do this even if you would never choose to drink raw milk yourself.)

What are your thoughts on this issue?  Do you have personal experience with raw milk that you'd like to share (good or bad)?  I'd love to hear from you!


SOS Mom Saver: Get Detailed Ballot Information Beforehand!!!

Everyone should vote.  No one will convince me otherwise.  Whether you agree with my views and plan to vote the same as me is irrelevant to me.  Make your voice heard!  Be a part of shaping our country's future!  THAT is what matters to me!

Why don't people vote? 
  • They're frustrated & angry because of mudslinging, nasty ads that tell us nothing about the ACTUAL candidate running the ad, constant phone calls, visits, &/or mail.
  • They know who they're planning on voting for the "big" races (President in presidential years, governor/senator/representative in non-presidential years like this one), but they have NO IDEA who they'll vote for in the state or local races.  They don't know the issues or what those people stand for.  
  • They don't know anything (or know very little) about the issues on the ballot & don't know where to go to get that info.
How can we fix those problems?
  • If you don't want the calls, then go to your state's voter website.  Often, there's an opt-out option so that you don't have to deal with the calls.  Wouldn't that be NICE?  In NV, go to the Secretary of State website to opt out.
  • Early in the election, contact the candidates.  You can typically find a list of them on your state Secretary of State or election website.  Go to each candidate's website & look at where they stand on the issues there.  If you have a question about where they stand on something, call their office or e-mail them.  It's rare that a candidate won't answer.
  • If you want more information on the ballot issues &/or direct links to the candidates in federal & state elections, go to Vote USA.  Their site is, by far, the most comprehensive state-by-state listing of candidates for state & federal elections as well as state ballot issues.  They include links to each candidate's website as well as links to get more info on each ballot issues should you want further clarification &/or to read the entire issue & not just the summary (which is what I usually do). 
The bottom line?  VOTE!!!!   Make your voice heard!!!!! 

Have You Voted Yet Today?

Have you voted yet today? 

If not, GO NOW!!! RUN...don't walk! Don't lose your chance to have your voice be heard!!! VOTE! Hurry!



The Danger of NOT Being Republican or Democrat... these...

And that's just one day's mail!

If that wasn't enough, there are the personal visits to our house!  Boy HOWDY!  You'd think someone would write down in a little book somewhere that NO REID can count on our support!  Do they really think repeat visits will change our minds? 

Can we say no, boys & girls?

I'm going to attach a speaker to my front porch.  Anytime a political visitor comes to the door, I'm going to blare Miley Cyrus as loud as I can until they leave.  Because what they have to say is as much music to MY ears as she will be to theirs!


Zero Tolerance = Zero Common Sense

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?


Answering the Census, Part II

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.


The Census Taker Cometh...

...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.


My Tax Money Put to Good Use

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.

Useless Census Letter Waste of Tax Payer Money Thoughts of THAT MomSeriously? 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?


I for one am absolutely floored that a General would show such GRAVE disrespect as to call someone "Ma'am". Really! What was he thinking? Well. All I can say is thank GOODNESS Ms. Barbara Boxer (D, CA) was there to set him straight! Where would our world be without her?

Ms. Boxer. I would like to have a few words with you myself; if I may. Last time I checked, YOU hadn't worked hard for ANYTHING! You have been elected by the people of California to represent them in the United States Senate. It is an honor and a privilege for you to serve in the United States Senate. It is a title that the people of California choose to give you. You should wear that title recognizing that it could (and from what I've seen probably should) be stripped away from you when you come up for re-election.

Perhaps, ma'am, you should spend less time focusing on correcting and belittling others and more on what your constituents hired you to do!


Do We Really Have a Right to Liberty?

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?



Will We REALLY Audit the Fed? HR 1207

I have a breaking news update!!!! I just heard that HR 1207 will be going to the house floor!!!

My usual source of confirmation, Open Congress, has yet to show the status move. However, according to their Twitter, they do have the information and are working on updating it as quickly as they can.

A resolution can find its way out of committee and onto the house floor in one of two ways. The committee can vote for it to be pushed on to the floor, or the bill can get enough co-sponsors that it passes a majority and therefore is automatically put to a house vote.

Today, HR 1207 which is a duplicate of a resolution Ron Paul has proposed for FIVE years in a row reached 222 co-sponsors surpassing the needed 218 and will, therefore, be going to the house floor for a vote!!!!

Praise God! This is definitely a step in the right direction!

We have an incredible opportunity here! For those who are unfamiliar with HR 1207, it is a resolution that will require a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

You can read the press release on Ron Paul's site here. The Campaign for Liberty lists the new co-sponsors here.



Warrant Issued for Mom's Arrest...

...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? 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!



Martial Law?

For a couple of years now, I’ve heard those who were saying martial law was on the horizon. I’ve also heard MANY, MANY people say they were crazy. I’ve never said they were crazy. I’m not so na├»ve as to think our government wouldn’t do something to attempt to bring martial law down.

I saw first-hand accounts (via video) of people losing their Constitutional rights shortly after Katrina. I watched in horror as men searched houses without permission despite being told by the occupants that everyone there was fine. I also watched in horror as they took weapons away from people because it was an emergency. These people had committed no crime. They had made the decision to stay in their homes, there was no immediate danger or flooding in their homes (nor was there), and they were legally holding their legally purchased weapons in their homes. It IS legal to use a gun in defense of your home should someone try to break in. However, in crime-ridden New Orleans, these law-abiding citizens were stripped of the right to defend their homes…yet the criminals still had THEIR guns.

I am again watching in horror. Last Tuesday (April 28th), the Massachusetts Senate approved S18. This bill still has to go to the house for approval and then must be signed by the governor of the state. I would encourage you to read every word of this bill. It is what martial law will look like.

In short, “they” (meaning anyone whom the government places in authority) will have the supposed “right” to force entry into your home to inspect your home, its contents, your family members, and your pets. They can also force innocluations and decontamination. If you refuse, you will be placed in forced quarantine which may or may not be in your residence. Also, while you can initially refuse, they will send orders up to get your forced to comply while you are in quarantine. In other words, if you don’t, you’ll get away with it for a bit…but then, you’ll have to really do it.

Healthcare providers will be forced to do these searches, decontaminations, &/or innoculations or face losing their license.

Honestly, this makes me sick to my stomach. I would encourage you to call the state house and governor of Massachusetts as soon and often as you can to protest this bill! You don’t think it will apply to you because you’re not in that state? Think again. What happens in one state often filters down to others. You can find a complete list of all of the state house members here.
I believe the area code is 617.



Resolutions Before Congress (i.e.-My Afternoon)

Two of my kids are at the neighbor’s house. One is laying on the bed because she’s tired.


I’m having an incredibly busy afternoon. I’m at my computer reading what Congress is trying to do with (to?) our country right now.

I’m currently reviewing the following bills:
  • HR956: HealthCARE Act of 2009
  • S21: Prevention First Act
  • S179: Health Information Technology Act of 2009
  • HJ5: Repeal the 22nd Amendment (Presidential Term Limits)
  • S350: Health Information Technology for Economical and Clinical Health Act
  • HR881: Right to Life Act
  • HR676: United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act
  • HR1205: Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2009
  • HR1256: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
  • S773: Cyber Security Act of 2009
I’d love to see what (if anything) others are saying about these bills. If I see anything of concern myself, I’ll be sure to let you know.
If you don’t currently do so, I’d encourage you to head over to Open Congress yourself and check out legislation that is currently pending &/or has been recently passed.



Why I Don't Support the Parental Rights Amendment

I’m sure many of you by now have heard about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Many of you have also heard about the Constitutional amendment to guarantee parental rights that was proposed by none other than my representative, Pete Hoekstra (R, MI-2). This amendment also has 70 co-sponsors in the house; every one of them is a Republican. The amendment currently sits in the House Judiciary committee. There is also a senate version that currently sits in the Senate Judiciary committee.

The House resolution to which I’m referring is House Joint Resolution 42 (or HJR 42). The Senate resolution is Senate Joint Resolution 13 (or SJR 13). All this means is that someone from the house and someone from the senate both agreed to present this resolution to their respective chambers at or around the same time. They are the exact same resolution.

The purpose of a joint resolution is typically to speed things up. This ideally works because the resolution can be passed by the Senate and the House at the same time thereby saving a step (of having to go from one to the other with the respective necessary waiting periods in between). Once both chambers have approved the resolution, it then goes straight to the president; provided of course that they were both passed as is without any amendments. You get the idea.

The reason they proposed a joint resolution with this particular amendment is because this amendment is intended to protect us from the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child which is expected to be signed by our president sometime this spring or summer.

You can find detailed info regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child including a full text of the resolution at the Parental Rights homepage. The resolution to amend the constitution, on the other hand, is quite simple. I’ll give you the full text here:

"Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of
their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this
right wIithout demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the
person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international
law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights
guaranteed by this article."
Many look at this and think it would be a great solution to protect us from the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC). Then there those of us who say we shouldn’t pass the UNCRC in the first place; with or without protection from an amendment. Yet others will counter saying that having the amendment is better than not because we cannot stop the treaty from being passed. While I understand what they are saying, I completely disagree.

Why all this worry about a UN treaty? An amendment to our Constitution says that any international treaty ratified by a 2/3rds majority of our Congress will take precedence OVER all of our existing state and federal laws. The only document it cannot override is the Constitution. Hence, the amendment to ensure that our rights are protected against this treaty.

Why the worry over THIS treaty specifically? If you haven’t read it yet, I would encourage you to do so…HIGHLY! Like now. If you do not understand the danger with the UNCRC treaty, then you cannot possibly understand why anyone would even want an amendment to our Constitution guaranteeing protection of our rights in the first place. You must understand one to understand the other. In a nutshell, the treaty says that the CHILD is the head of the family. If your child doesn’t want to go to church (at 5), he/she doesn’t have to. If you discipline your child by saying he can’t go to out with his friends, but your child still wants to go out with his friends…you must let him. If you don’t, you are violating his rights. See where I’m going? This is DANGEROUS territory into which we do NOT want to go!

The problem with passing this amendment to fix the problems the treaty would bring is that it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It looks good on the surface, but trouble lurks beneath. It gives power to the federal government that the federal government would not otherwise have. It says that your rights are protected unless the government decides they shouldn’t be. When would that be? What will be the governments unit of measure? How will they decide when they can and cannot take away our rights?

So what do we do? How do we protect ourselves against a treaty which the leaders in our government have said they will pass? How do we ensure our Constitutional rights on paper?

I do NOT have a problem with a Constitutional amendment. Frankly, though, I think it should be more open. What I’d like to see is either a repeal of the portion saying that an international treaty takes precedence over our state and federal laws. If that cannot be done, then I’d like another amendment saying that we will abide by international treaties so long as they are not in conflict with our federal or state laws at which point our they are our governing authority.

I firmly believe we must look more deeply at anything the government proposes. Remember, we must look at what any proposed resolution will have the ABILITY to do, not at its current intent. By doing so, we ensure we are happy with its results now AND in the future when a different set of people is in charge.



Politics? Where Do You Start?

No. I’m not going to blog about how to get started IN politics (as in running for office). So if that’s what you’re looking for, I’ll save you the time. I’m talking about those of us “regular” citizens who want to get involved in our country. We want to have a say. We want to know what our congressmen and women are doing and how to act from there.

How on earth do we get started? Are we at the mercy of those who seem to have this miraculous access to new resolutions and bills? Must we always rely on someone else’s interpretation of a particular piece of legislation? Can we not find some place to go ourselves so that we can see the resolutions?

We can go to the “official” congressional website. You can also go to several unofficial sites such as These are good sites and they certainly serve a good purpose for those who know their way around a bill &/or know how to easily find any exteraneous information they may be looking for such as the current status of the bill, what committee(s) it was referred to, the bill in its original form, and what (if any) amendments have been made to the bill while it was going through the approval process.

There is one “unofficial” site, however, that has all of that and more. You can easily see where the bill currently sits, the bill in its original form, and any amendments that have been made. In addition, it will show you who the committee members are for any respective committee complete with the contact information for each of the committee members. (Something that you are able to find, but have to work for if the committee members are not all in your state &/or region.)

You can also search for current pending and approved legislation easily by subject (i.e. Civil Rights, Abortion, Economy, etc.). They then allow you to track bills that interest you. They'll even show you who has funded candidates during their campaigns, track their voting history, and, in detail, who voted for what bill.

The site, Open Congress, is a non-partisan site sponsored by those who believe in governmental transparency. Clicking on the “About us” page on the Sunlight Foundation page will provide you with a link to the other transparency sites they run.

I would HIGHLY encourage anyone who wants to get involved to start with Open Congress. There is a wealth of information there. They take what you could eventually find with a LOT of time and searching and make it easy to find in one place.

I firmly believe that everyone should be involved in the political process. We not only have the right to do so, but the duty. It doesn't matter what you believe, what party (if any) you identify should get involved. Our government doesn't just need our involvement on election day. They need to hear from us regularly if they are to truly represent us in Washington.



It's Not About Left or Right!!!

When will people get this? Am I naive to think they will?

It's NOT about black or white! It's not about left or right! It's not about Democrat or Republican! It's about a government that has been slowly taking away our rights, freedoms, and money for YEARS! This didn't start with Obama. This didn't start with either Bush. This didn't start with Clinton! Some say it started with FDR and the New Deal; others believe it goes even furthur back than that.

I am NOT partisan! I could care LESS what party someone is from! I care about their ideals as evidenced by their previous voting history and history (or lack thereof) of keeping their word. I will vote for a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Constitutional, Green, or any other party long as they will TRULY uphold our Constitutional rights!

I am SO sick of the right trying to co-opt a just message to the government and attempting to turn that message into an anti-Obama cry! The message of the Tea Party was not originally an anti-Obama cry. I will concede that Fox News and the right media turned it into that (or tried to in some cases). However, the original message was outrage over unchecked, unfettered government spending without TRUE representation of the people.

Do we have elected officials? Yes. There are people whom we have elected to represent us. However, previous history has led me to believe that we do not have TRUE representation. If those people (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) vote according to their pocketbook or what they feel will best benefit their sponsors &/or just plan ignore those who elected them, then they are NOT truly representing the people. They are merely appearance of true representation. The fact that we voted for them does not mean they will represent us. Unfortunately, one does NOT automatically equal the other.

I am not someone who is upset with Obama because I liked Bush. I didn't like Bush! I don't like how he & the standing Congress at the time passed the first stimulus measures with no regard to the thoughts or opinions of the people of the United States who were crying out for them not to be passed. I also don't like how Obama pushed through his "emergency" stimulus without even giving those whom we elected to represent us a chance to read it first...let alone the American people. (Something he promised in his campaign.)

I'm also tired of those saying neither president had any other choice but to attempt to pass these measures in the manners in which they did. If I cussed, I'd have a great word for that right now. I believe it's also a popular card game. Instead, I'll say this: What a load of crap! IF these measures where such true emergencies then why did many of our representatives vote down the first one and only agree to pass it after manipulation, threat, and fear from the president (Bush)? IF the first stimulus Obama passed was SUCH an emergency, then why did it have more pork than your local pig farm?

I don't know about you, but when I'm in an ambulance because of an emergency, I don't want the paramedics stopping for gas, doing their laundry, paying their electric bill, etc. on the WAY to take me to the hospital. I don't want the doctors in the ER to check the labs for a non-emergent patient they saw before me, stopping to go potty, or ordering that a barber come in & cut my hair. I want them to tend to my EMERGENCY!!!!...and ONLY my emergency until said emergency has passed! During an emergency is NOT the time to do extra things. It's the time to do only what is necessary in order to save a life (or in this case...the country). Anything extra can wait until later.

Might I need a haircut? Might the doctor need to use the restroom or check the other patient's labs? Might the paramedics need gas? Might they need to do their laundry or pay their electric bill? Sure. Those things might even need to be done soon. However, they are NOT an emergency and therefore should not be tended to during an emergency situation, but only AFTER the emergency has passed!

This abuse of terms (emergency) and misuse of power leading to a literal financial rape of ALL Americans is what we are enraged about! THAT is what we were protesting! I'd have protested if McCain, Bob Barr, or Ron Paul were in office and were taking the same actions.

Once again, I will say it. This is NOT about left or right! When I attend the Tea Parties on July 4th, I pray there won't be one anti-Obama sign. I fear I may approach one of them and hand them a copy of this blog. I'm sure they'll assume I'm a liberal just as those who hear I don't support Obama's policies thus far assume I'm conservative. When, oh WHEN will people realize there are more than two parties and more than two ways of doing things?

Lord, please help this country! We need your help! Desperately!