So, when did schools obtain the right to take away parental rights?

When my daughter grumbled into the kitchen this morning she asked me if she could have some juice in her water jug instead of just water. She said, "Some of the other kids bring juice, and I want some too."

I opened the fridge and grabbed the juice and poured it into the jug she held out for me. Then my wife entered the room and said, "You can't take juice to school."

"Why not?" I asked.

"Because," she said, "The teacher has a policy that kids can't drink juice because it will rot their teeth."

"Well, that..."

"DON'T...!!!" my wife motioned her hand out as to say, "STOP! Don't go there!" She didn't need to, because I planned to stop anyway. Yet instead of assuming I knew (as many men would do), she said, "KK needs to learn to follow the rules. The rules in her class is no juice."

"Well, that's a bunch of bullshit!" I wanted to say, yet held my mouth. Wife was right about the rule following. Yet I was frustrated nonetheless. I felt trapped. I felt as though I were living in a socialistic nation.

Since when does the school have a right to protect my daughter from herself. Their job is to protect one kid from another kid, yet not to protect kids from themselves. Protecting kids from themselves is the job of the parent. That's me. I'm the parent. It's my job to care for my daughters teeth. If I want to be stupid and let my kid have juice and rotting teeth, that's my right.

When I was a kid we weren't allowed to chew gum. This was a rule because the noise from gum disturbed the class, and kids were sticking old gum under the desks and destroying school property. This rule was to protect kids from each other and protect teachers and janitors (they used to be called janitors) from kids.

Yet now teachers and schools and principals and superintendents and school boards and politicians have decided that parents are too stupid to protect their children from themselves, so they have to do it for us. I'm stupid, they think. You're stupid, they think. So they must protect your (our -- mine) children from themselves.

Schools are now doing our job. What disturbs me most about this is not even my wife was concerned about this. Personally, I'm ticked. The schools not only have the power to put me in jail if I don't send my kids to school, but to tell me how to parent. There should be a public outcry, yet there isn't.

Have we become so complacent as a nation, so busy raising our kids and working to support our families, that we missed when our rights were taken away? That appears to be what has happened.

How to stop progressives

Creating a New World Order: Part IX

The only way to stop progressives is with God and returning to the founders vision for America.

We must cut taxes. We must decrease spending by a lot, which will mean upsetting some voters by cutting government programs. We must cut government jobs. We must stop paying government workers twice what average workers make. We must stop giving government workers benefits better that what the free market provides.

We must reform social security. We must reform welfare. We must repeal Obamacare. We need to put forth real health care reforms such as making it harder to sue doctors, and allowing people to purchase healthcare from any company in any state.

We must bring God back into the nation. God teaches capitalism.

We must educate our kids about the founding fathers, and the founding documents, and about the true meaning of the First Thanksgiving. We must teach that capitalism has succeeded wherever it has been tried, and that progressivism and redistribution of wealth has failed every time it has been tried.

We must stop changing history. We must tell history accurately. We must teach our kids the true version of history, even if we don't like it -- so as we do not continue to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We must stop making laws that are unconstitutional. We must preserve and protect the 10th amendment which was made to protect the sovereignty of the states and of the people. We must stop making laws that take away personal freedoms and give more power to the federal government.

We must stop taking power away from people like you and me.

And the only way to do this is for conservatives -- God fearing capitalists and normal people like you and me -- to get control of Washington and to gain a majority.

No. We must not just elect republicans. We must elect conservative republicans. We need a conservative majority, not just a republican majority. Sixty seats in the House, and 51 seats in the Senate.

And then we must win the office of the President in 2012 while maintaining our majority.

God. The Founders. The Constitution

Obama backs 1% in Egypt, yet not 60% in U.S.

A good point was made by the blogosphere recently is that 1 percent of the people of Egypt are rioting in the streets, protesting against Mubarak, and Obama decides the people have spoken and the people are right. He decided to back the people and insist Mubarak step down.

Yet in the United States 60% of the people, two-thirds of them, are against his Obamacare, and a judge even ruled it to be unconstitutional, and yet Obama doesn't care. He is still not backing down, and still trying to push forward with his agenda of forcing his policies on the American people who -- by a majority -- do not want it.

At the same time 1% of the people of Iran rioted in the streets to protest the Iranian dictatorship, young folks who yearned to create a democracy, yet Obama did not back these people up.

He decided it was best to say and do nothing when 1 percent of the folks in a nation run by a dictator thug who champions for the destruction of the U.S., Israel and the rest of the West, and he decided to remove a dictator thug who is an ally to the U.S., Israel and the West.

Similarly, we can only guess that if a true democracy is formed in the Middle East nations yearning for freedom right now, Obama will get the credit by the media. Yet in truth, George Bush should get the credit.

I say this because Obama and others on the left in the U.S and around the world did not want the U.S to meddle in Iraq whether he was a tyrannical and insane threat or not. Once we went into Iraq they did not want us to win. When it was over, they didn't want us to stay until a true democracy was formed.

Yet Bush was steadfast. He said, "Once a stable democracy is formed In Iraq, other nations will see what it's like to life under freedom and democracy. Democracy spreads. Other nations in the Middle East will yearn for it.

It appears he might have been right. So if Obama is truly a great leader, he will make the right decisions that will help any freedom movement and any effort to create a stable and friendly democracy in any of these nations.

It must be a true democracy, and one where the people call it a democracy and it is actually a socialistic government, or a government in favor of social justice, or taking from the rich to give to the poor, or creating a welfare state, or a progressive government, or a communist government.

It's easy for those in power to lie and trick us. It's easy to deceive. us. It's easy to misunderstand reality. Just like Obama sees 1% of the people of Egypt standing up in protest and he backs them, and he won't back 60% of Americans who do not want Obamacare.

Obama seems to have his priorities mixed. I'm not purporting to be an expert by any means, and I don't portent to have all the answers, yet it appears Obama might have interests at hand that are not necessarily in the best interest of America.

Are progressives selfish????

This is just a thought, but do you think it's possible that liberals, progressives, and mainly democrats, put themselves before the nation. I mean, I'd like to have more money myself, yet I always like to think I'd rather have a nation before a better pension.

I say this because tonight I had a discussion with a teacher friend of mine, and she said first off that she didn't want to discuss politics with me because I'm a republican.

Then she said, "So who won in Michigan?"

I said, "Republicans won big."

She said. "Darn. Rick Snyder won then. That means they are going to take away my pension."

"Nothing is going to change," My wife said. And the discussion ended with an "Okay" by my teacher friend.

I could have added to the discussion, yet I took the high ground and kept my mouth shut. I have no problem with my friend being a democrat. I have no problem with her being a progressive. I have no problem if her decision is based on lack of wisdom or if it's due to a well thought out process. I have never attacked her position, or said she was stupid, or attacked the people she likes or...

Look, in my view, this is America and she can think anything she wants. I want her to express her view. I want her to disagree with me if she wants. Unlike progressives, I don't want to not hear those who disagree with me. I don't want fairness doctrines to shut up progressive media outlets.

I won't run away from her in anger when she says I'm an stupid for my views. I won't, by the way, ever call her stupid, because I know she's not. She may be wrong in her view for America, yet she's definitely not stupid.

Yet she doesn't feel the same. I'm a conservative, and a republican, and I'm wrong. Republicans, in her view, are trying to destroy her own personal life. Republicans, or conservatives, are standing in the way of progressivism. Better yet, conservatives will try to get rid of social security, medicare and pensions.

During the 2012 election cycle democrats were running adds saying things like, "Dan Benesheck is against social security; he wants to take your social security away." They claimed he wants to privatize social security, and this would mean when the stock market crashes, there would go our retirement.

Yet what they didn't say was Dan was smart enough to recognize social security is going bankrupt in a few years. If we don't do something, it won't be there. Thankfully voters were smart enough to see through this junk; these twists of the truth; lies.

That's what I think my friend was responding to, the lies that republicans want to take away stuff from them, like pensions. Yet the truth is, if anything, a republican governor might be the best option to keep your pensions because republicans will cut spending and reduce taxes to make sure the government doesn't go bankrupt. If we have no state, they you'll have no pension.

When it comes to medicair and social security the same holds true. Democrats want to everbody what they want and what they think they deserve, yet republicans are aware that social security might go broke and medicare might go broke. They will work to fix what is broken. So if you want to keep your check, you are better off voting republican.

I remember a few days ago a liberal friend of mine at work said the commercials that attack Rick Snyder claiming that he "sent jobs oversesas," was a good reason not to vote for him. Yet my conservative friend came back with a good argument: "Him sending jobs oversees allowed him to keep his business going, and that's the exact kind of person we need in Lansing.

Thus, if Snyder has to make some cuts, pensions perhaps, to save the state, then that's what he should do. Regardless if he has to, "take what is mine," away.

That's right. In her view, republicans are after her pension. Republicans are after her retirement. Republicans want her to make less money. It doesn't matter about saving the state from bankruptcy. She doesn't consider the fact that government workers in Michigan make twice as much as the same worker in the private sector.

Unions are selfish? Unions, like the teachers union, are after as much money to teachers as they can get. That is, regardless as to whether as a nation we can afford the teachers pay, and the teachers pension. Teachers, in that regard, at least liberal teachers (of which 80% of teachers are) are selfish?

I'm sorry, but while I think teachers are underpaid, I don't feel sorry for them at all. They have every holiday off, they have three months out of summer off, they don't have to save lives. If a life in in jeopardy, all they do is call someone. And despite the crying, they get paid pretty well.

Yes, the teachers who live in my neighborhood make about $20,000 more than I do, and I save lives. I save lives, I do CPR, I do mouth to mouth, I open up lungs, I get people feeling better, and I get paid shit. Yet you never hear RTs complaining about pay, you hear teachers complaining.

Is it possible most progressives think of themselves before the nation? They think of getting what's due to them? They think about getting their money? They think about getting their welfare? Their medicaid? Their social security? At the expense of the nation.

Who cares that hard working middle class workers like you and me have to sacrifice to pay the price tag for all those teachers and social programs. Who cares about that. It's all about me. Liberals are all about me.

Personally, as a conservative, I am a patriot. I would rather make less money and have the nation get stronger. I believe (my principle) that without my nation I would have nothing. I'd rather my nation be strong than I be strong.

Yet that's just me. I'm no selfish at all. Yet my thought today is, are progressives selfish? Are they blind that they are free due to the nation, and if they continue to be selfish their nation may be no more?

You know, it used to be that Americans would give up their lives before they gave up their freedoms, or allowed others to give up theirs. Now we have people saying to hell with other people's freedom so long as I get what is mine.

Just a thought. What do you think?