Mom's News 4/26/10

WikiLeaks: The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection Confirmed, Again 

Separation of School and State
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6iHRSAIsCo&feature=player_embedded#at=40
Footage of Tornado hitting St Louis Airport
Outrageous gas prices  
Ban on Circumcision 

TSA Agent distributs child porn on Facebook 

Why I don't like Facebook anymore

Its been happening more and more. Facebook deactivates, removes or disables accounts of people who do not deserve it. Yet they allow, other material to be active.

First let me say, Facebook is a private site, owned by a private company. I agree with their right to allow and not allow whatever content they choose. However, I also have a right to disagree and in turn not use their product. Which  is not easy. Facebook has created a wonderful niche in the online world. I have at least 100 people who visit my Facebook page, while I maybe get 3-4 on my blogs. Its a wonderful venue to share information and network.

But its getting tiresome. I woke up this am to find that one of my favorite birthing pages has been deactivated. The page owner has no clue as to why, and I am sure, like most people, Facebook will never tell her.
This is her backup page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Backup-Page-for-An-EDD-is-an-Estimated-Due-Date-not-an-Expiration-date/204858212867818

Maybe there was a photo someone didn't like, maybe someone just wanted to be spiteful and report them. Maybe someone was offended by ones beliefs. However, I find it hard to believe that facebook will deem a photo like this offensive (click here) and allow a photo like this (click here) to be displayed. They also allow content such as this (click here) that I think is completely dangerous. And yes I have reported the Sarah Palin one several times.


And not to mention that Facebook often disables my husbands account for sending to many private messages and at times wont allow him to make friend requests. I thought the purpose of Facebook was to network, interact with people, find old friends and meet new people?

Anyhow this is the last straw. I have taken a Facebook leave before, but if Facebook removed the pages I visit, what is the point of using Facebook?

What would you do?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377178/SWAT-teams-10-hour-siege-mother-Maryanne-Godboldo-Detroit.html

Child was homeschooled and mother decided to send her to public school. School "required"  her to vaccinate said child ( there is an exemption for this) and the child had a reaction ( of course) and was told to go on antipsychotoc medication. The mother stopped the meds and CPS was called.

I cant say I would not have done as the mother did. The only thing I my home I will protect with my life is my children. If you have come to take them, it wont be without a fight. You'd probably have to shoot me dead. They came to take her child. Whether or not she pulled the gun, they were taking her child.

You may say thats irresponsible but every turn I see them trying to take away parental rights, one step at at time. I wont allow it. They have no rights to my children and I will defend my right to them. What is irresponsible is allowing this type of mentality in government in the first place by either active encouragement or complacency.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with the mothers actions, with my opinions on it? What would you have done? 

Ronald Reagan on Socialism & Liberalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iShCXx_xZDQ&feature=related

Charity v. Welfare

I have been involved in an ongoing discussion about charity and welfare, and most prominently from a LDS point of view as that was a large part of  the start of the discussion, but welcome the view of everyone.

Too provide some background let me post a few of the points that are being discussed, by posted a statement by me.

I support charity. In fact I belong to a church that has a LARGE focus on charity. However, charity, via the government is not charity. My church has a WONDERFUL welfare program. Our members voluntarily pay tithe and are able to provide for others in need. With that need comes responsibility. I agree with this wholeheartedly. ""One of the distinguishing characteristics of this inspired gospel-centered endeavor is its emphasis on personal responsibility and self-reliance. President Marion G. Romney explained: “Many programs have been set up by well-meaning individuals to aid those who are in need. However, many of these programs are designed with the shortsighted objective of ‘helping people,’ as opposed to ‘helping people help themselves.’” 

Obama might be a socialist

If you believe it's greedy for American taxpayers to want to keep more of their own money, but not greedy to demand that government confiscate other people's money and redistribute it to those who didn't earn it, you might be a socialist.

If you don't understand (or care) that babies scream and cry the moment they are born because they are already heavily in debt and facing a bleak future and lower quality of life, you might be a socialist.

If the only thing you, your Cabinet members and czars know about business is from books read at Harvard Law School, written by Karl Marx, you might be a socialist.

If you want to allocate hundreds of millions to the Internal Revenue Service to go after tax cheats when your administration is filled with tax cheats, including the guy in charge of America's taxes (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner), you might be a socialist.