My real point is, when do we start taking some responsibility for our own actions and not blame schools, the government, or anyone else for our actions or the actions of our children?

Children do many things that can endanger their well being. We teach what we can and hope enough sinks in so that they don’t get hurt, but occasionally they do get hurt.

Banning swing sets is a little over the top for most of us that grew up with swing sets and other recreational equipment that posed a possibility of getting hurt. I suppose the teachers were blamed for not supervising the children closely enough.

It rates along with the person that comes to your home uninvited, slips on an icy door step, then sues and wins. How to they win? If they weren’t invited they shouldn’t be there in the first place. Even if they were, shouldn’t they be there at their own risk and responsible for their actions?

I guess we should all be in padded rooms where we can’t hurt ourselves. Even then, someone would probably find a way to injure them self.

I also included this brief poll to get some feeling for where in the political spectrum actually place themselves. Hopefully people will vote. Nothing is recorded except your vote.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

What are the Definitions of a Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian and Statist (Communist)?

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded “safety net” to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Centrists espouse a “middle ground” regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose “political extremes,” and emphasize what they describe as “practical” solutions to problems.

Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates “traditional values.” They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today’s world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

The trend I am hearing more about is the fact that more and more American’s appear to be claiming to be Libertarians.

Hopefully people will understand that some sites really don’t care where visitors come from aside from the number and even then it is just to see if something is actually getting visitors, so will put their fears behind them and just give the click necessary and vote. I do believe repeat visitors to this site are conservative for the most part, but if people vote, it should tell or at least give a strong indication as to whether or not this is true.

The thing I heard is that it causes states to pay more than they want.

It seems that most of what I hear in the news, and from people I meet personally, that most feel that although we all want and need health care, the cost of the present plan is to high.

The article on Fox News, “Arizona Lawsuit Is Latest to Challenge to Federal Health Care Law“, is in line with the report this morning about 20 states that are set to challenge the law.

This excerpt from the article indicates an instance where it appears that congress is over stepping it’s limits:

“Congress simply does not have the power under the ‘commerce clause’ to require an individual mandate. This is the first time that Congress has attempted to compel individuals to buy a private product,” said Clint Bolick, an attorney in the case.

Bolick called the law, which won’t go into full effect until 2014, unconstitutional and “one of the most sweeping invasions of individual liberty and state sovereignty” in history.

The courts will be the judge of that. But in the considerable window before the individual mandate kicks in, dozens of states are coming at the law from all sides to make their case against it.”

If this is true it appears obvious that it is another area where the congress is representing someone other than the people. If 71% of the people that voted in Missouri wish to block the law mandating the law requiring people to buy insurance, then it would seem there are some problems.

It is obviously 71% of the “people that voted” and not that percentage of people in the state, but it seems that congress should look over what is being done and listen to the people.

At least do some type of evaluation of what is going on, regardless of party affiliation.

Theblaze, is a blog/site where people can comment on his many articles and I did hear on his show that promoted his site that he has hired several professional journalists full time and even more that will provide articles on a part-time basis.

It is probably a good example of capitalism at it’s finest as it was said that he makes roughly 32 million dollars annually with his TV and Radio shows.

Because I tend to lean moderate, although I have been accused of not being that way in some of the comments on this site, I do feel that with the money that the conservative talk show hosts both on TV and on the radio are making massive amounts of money off their followers.

I do believe the sponsors that are advertised on the conservative shows are also making money. It is no different from the working man’s view that the liberals are also making millions. The difference comes in when it is a tax passed by the liberals where we are forced to give them our money, not just recommended to purchase something. That does, in my mind make a difference.

When Mr. Beck recommends his viewers to buy gold, I can’t help but think that if he could offer up some of his massive income, people just might do that. I don’t see a family of four with a large house payment, car loan, and other living expenses making 50 or 60 thousand dollars per year as able to buy much gold.

The information that filters down to the working person all comes through the wealthy.

I am not condemning Mr. Beck in any way. I do think someone in his income bracket, just might look at things differently than someone who is just scraping by or has lost their job. It is wonderful that he is getting the information to people about the issues facing America.

Hopefully “theblaze” will be a very useful tool because it is a chance for massive numbers of people to comment and have their views known by others.

I do plan to  somewhat follow it as I can go there at any time instead of having the need to have time available when his shows are on because I almost never record any show to watch later. It seems that I never get around to it.

If someone wants some different views they might try the more liberal site by Cynthia Black. It is a small site, in no way popular like Mr. Beck but it might be interesting to see the liberal views on some subjects.

To have a site about America, which is the goal of this site, both sides must be represented.

Contact:
Mokie Porter
301-585-4000, Ext. 146

Vietnam Veterans of America Applauds Publication of the
Final Rules on Agent Orange New Presumptive Diseases

——————————————————————————–

(Washington, D.C.)—“Vietnam Veterans of America welcomes the long-anticipated final rules governing the addition of three new diseases to the list of diseases presumptively service connected for exposure to Agent Orange. Under these new rules, published today in the Federal Register by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), veterans who served in Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, are presumed exposed to Agent Orange for Parkinson’s disease, B-Cell leukemias, and ischemic heart disease (IHD),” said VVA National President John Rowan.

The effective date of the rules, which appear http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-21556.pdf, is August 31, 2010. However, VA cannot start paying benefits under the rules, as the Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires a 60-day wait. “It is anticipated that the VA will start paying on the back claims on or after October 31, 2010, and unless Congress acts to deny implementation of the rules, Agent Orange-exposed veterans suffering from any of these diseases will get the help they need and have earned,” noted Rowan.

The published rules state Parkinson’s disease is covered, however the rules do not include parkinsonian syndromes and/or parkinsonism, as well as multiple systems atrophy (MSA), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and other parkinsonism caused by stroke, encephalitis, meningitis, cortibosasal degeneration, certain antipsychotic and metoclopramide medications, other toxins, and head trauma.

The rules add all chronic B-Cell leukemias to the presumptive list, including 14 kinds of lymphomas involving B-cell leukemias. B-Cell leukemias include B-Cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma; Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, mature B-cell type; B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia; Precursor B lymphoblastic leukemia; and Hairy cell leukemia.

For Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD), the rules outline what the VA will and will not recognize: According to the published rules, the VA “interprets IHD, for purposes of service connection, to encompass any atherosclerotic heart disease resulting in clinically significant ischemia or requiring coronary revascularization. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, we explained that the term ‘ischemic heart disease’ does not encompass hypertension or peripheral manifestations of arteriosclerotic heart disease, such as peripheral vascular disease or stroke.”VA points out that IHD includes “Prinzmetal’s Angina, and Stable and Unstable Angina.”

Veterans exposed to Agent Orange herbicides and who suffer from one of these diseases should file a claim immediately, and may apply on line at: http://vabenefits.vba.va.gov/vonapp/main.asp. Exposed veterans who filed a claim prior to August 31, 2010, may be covered under a court class ruling, Nehmer v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nehmer), which, in most cases, provides for payment back to the date of the original claim filing date. Nehmer also allows payment of back benefits to the surviving spouse or to the veteran’s estate. Veterans who have filed a claim prior to August 31, 2010, should contact a Veterans Service Officer to ensure all benefits are received. “We urge all veterans with past claims for one of the new diseases to call the VA at 1-800-827-1000 and inform them that their claim may be subject to the Nehmer court ruling,” said Rowan.

Noted Rowan, “VVA contends that many Vietnam-era veterans were also exposed in their service elsewhere in Southeast Asia during the war, including in Thailand and Laos, and aboard Navy vessels off the coast of Vietnam, as well as certain military bases located in the continental U.S. and its territories. We will continue to fight for all who suffer long-term health effects as a result of their service to our nation.”

I wish to make it very clear that I did not post it to incite anyone or anything else. It is merely to show another e-mail that is circulating and how at least one person views things that are happening in America.

It seems that there is something happening in America that is causing people to distribute e-mails of this nature.

If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place. For those who do not appreciate the country our founding fathers gave them, need to find another place to live.
To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity — your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America , one of its three central values — e pluribus unum, “from many, one.” And this school will be guided by America ‘s values.

This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism — an unhealthy preoccupation with the self — while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America ‘s citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here — it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English — but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school’s property — whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can’t speak without using the f-word, you can’t speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as “Nigger,” even when used by one black student to address another black, or “bitch,” even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way — the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago — by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue.

There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky — to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

This video speaks for itself.

Comments are welcome. I do think the mustache might be over the edge, but I can’t see that it is illegal. I do think it would be interesting to know exactly what law he was breaking. I really have no idea, I just thought others should see it.

Anyone that has watched any news concerning the Huffington Post know that the site is considered to be a liberal site.

I would ask that you follow the link to the article my Larry Gellman and just read it. I ask this as he explains his view on the e-mail about Bob DeCarolis and Craig Robinson.

Very often liberal authors are accused of lying or just slamming the conservatives but I thought this article to be quite good. If you ask why, it is because admittedly this site does lean conservative. It also tries to give some insight into both sides of all issues.

His article makes it very obvious that the circulating e-mail is filled with errors, actually lies.

This is the very thing that I try to direct this site at, debunking e-mails. The difference between this site and some of the others is that I am not an expert, nor to I claim to be.

I merely post things as I see them, or with e-mails, as I receive them and have them available to anyone that finds this site. I want the people of America to have a chance to voice their opinions on e-mails and other articles so that we can hear what they think and find out how they feel about many issues facing America.

Mr. Gellman said he e-mailed his friends and informed them of the errors in the e-mail. I believe that he is benefiting all Americans by notifying them of the errors in that e-mail. Isn’t that what is really important with any of the circulating e-mails, simply finding the truth?

Great care must be taken by all of us to not just accept e-mails, liberal or conservative as fact unless we take the time to do some research.

I have said several times that those that contribute to this site welcome “all” views, left or right. We just want the truth.

I welcome anyone to write on this blog, or comment, etc. There are always different views on the issues facing America. If both sides aren’t represented, then I don’t see how we can truly understand the issues.

Does it really matter if we are liberal or conservative? Shouldn’t we all be, “Americans”, then research the issue to determine whether or not we agree with the conservative or liberal view?

I thought Mr. Gellman’s article was excellent.

The above link is to an article about banning lead in bullets and sinkers for a couple things. Obviously it is just another push to ban guns and ammunition.

I hear many people say that guns will never be banned. By making the lead bullets environmentally “unfriendly” the pessimist will say it is just a back door approach to banning guns.

Those who hunt or have any interest in guns for any reason see the subtle attack on the rights to own guns.

Those who want them banned, probably like the idea, but I have seen nothing written that indicates anything but negative when guns are banned.

I strongly recommend going to the NRA site and possibly joining. The important thing you will receive is the information from all states as it comes out because the NRA distributes this in the e-mails as the new bills are discussed.

We keep hearing that there were promises that guns would not be banned, but yet we have bills that are frequently being considered that would severely limit gun ownership.

American’s have been warned of this by those living in other countries that are experiencing or have experienced sever gun controls. People must get information about the new proposals.

Whether you want them or or want them banned, if you are to help, you must stay informed.