Veterans of the USA - The Goads

This is a classic tribute to the many men and women who have gone before us.
We take this moment to say, THANK YOU, for FREEDOM in the U.S.A.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

WND EXCLUSIVE. Federal database to include your children? Regulations creating repository for 'every public school student's personal information'

The federal government is laying the foundation for a national database that could include all of the personal details of every student in every public school in every state, warns a report by the leading homeschool advocacy group.

The report, compiled by Will Estrada and Katie Tipton of the Home School Legal Defense Association, points out that a “slew of new federal incentives and federally funded data models have spurred states to monitor students’ early years, performance in college, and success in the workforce by following ‘individuals systematically and efficiently across state lines.’”

The authors “believe that this expansion of state databases is laying the foundation for a national database filled with personal student data.”

The report notes that the U.S. Department of Education is banned by law from creating a national data system, but under the Obama administration, new regulations have opened the door.

Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, parents were promised they could access their children’s personally identifiable information collected by schools. But the schools were banned from sharing the details with third parties.

The law explains that personally identifiable information includes names of family members, address, Social Security number, date and place of birth, disciplinary record and biometric record.

The new report says, however, the Department of Education has reshaped FERPA through regulations so that “any government or private entity that the department says is evaluating an education program has access to students’ personally identifiable information.”

Postsecondary institutes and workforce education programs can also be given the data.

While the change has prompted a still-unresolved lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the framework of a national database slowly is slowly being implemented, the report says.

The Home School Legal Defense Association has long opposed the creation of a national database.

“We believe that it would threaten the privacy of students, be susceptible to abuse by government officials or business interests, and jeopardize student safety,”  the report says. “We believe that detailed data systems are not necessary to educate young people. Education should not be an Orwellian attempt to track students from preschool through assimilation into the workforce.”

The report points out that guidelines for building state longitudinal data systems that can collect and link personally identifiable information across state lines have been released by task forces funded by both the Department of Education and special interest groups

Many of the recommendations were compiled in the National Education Data Model, a project funded by the Department of Education and overseen by the Council for Chief State School Officers, one of the organizations that created Common Core.

Already, 18 states and many local education agencies are building databases, the report says, and other states are using similar database models.

“Concentrating data collection around a few models means that states are getting closer and closer to keeping the same data and using the some interoperable technology to store it,” HSLDA reports.

The report says 46 states now have databases that can track students from preschool through the workforce.

Several other federal programs also are pushing the creation of databases, including Race to the Top, which was to allocate $4.35 billion to schools that make “certain changes” in their policies, including the adoption of the Common Core initiative, which seeks to standardize curricula nationally.

“Every state that agrees to the Common Core in order to receive RTTT funding also commits ‘to design, develop, and implement statewide P-20 (preschool through workforce) longitudinal data systems’ that can be used in part or in whole by other states,” the report says.

HSLDA warns that the “heavy involvement of the federal government in enticing states to create databases of student-specific data that are linked between states is creating a de facto centralized database.”

“Before our eyes a ‘national database’ is being created in which every public school student’s personal information and academic history will be stored,” the report says.

The authors of Common Core, the report notes, “have been heavily involved in developing data models and overseeing data collection.”

The impact might someday be measured in lost dreams and evaporated opportunities, the report suggests.

“A crucial part of the responsibility of parents is protecting the privacy of their children. This enables parents not only to guard their children’s physical safety, but also to nurture their individuality and secure opportunities for them to pursue their dreams apart from government interference,” the report says.

“The rise of national databases threatens these freedoms.”
=================================================

FAQ

1. What is the Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards (“the Common Core”) are two sets of K–12 academic standards that outline what students are expected to learn in English language arts and mathematics each year from kindergarten through high school. The goal of this checklist is not literacy, proficiency, or increased graduation rates but to make students “college- and career-ready.”¹ The Common Core was written by the National Governors Association (NGA)—an organization of governors, their head staff members, and policy makers—and the Council of Chief State School Officials (CCSSO). States receive Race to the Top (RTTT) federal funding for committing to adopt and implement the Common Core and to collect student data from preschool through the workforce. Read the topic paper >>

2. Is the Common Core already being implemented?

3. How is the federal government involved in the Common Core?

4. Does the Common Core have a philosophical bias?

5. Does the Common Core provide for individualized education?

6. Is there any evidence that centralized education works better than decentralized education?

7. Will the Common Core impact homeschools and private schools?

8. Does the Common Core lead to a national curriculum?

9. Does it matter that testing is being aligned with the Common Core?

10. Does the Common Core include a national database?

11. Who supports the Common Core and why?

12. Who opposes the Common Core and why?



*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Purpose vs. Power: Parens Patriae and Agency Self-Interest

Daniel L. Hatcher

University of Baltimore - School of Law

2012

New Mexico Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 159, 2012

Abstract:     

The purpose of human service agencies to serve vulnerable populations such as abused and neglected children derives from the common law doctrine of parens patriae, embodying the inherent role of the state as parent of the country. However, along with this foundational purpose, the parens patriae doctrine also provides power that is illusive to public knowledge and oversight. To maintain their cloak of power, the very agencies created to fulfill the parens patriae obligations — to protect the rights of children — have systematically battled the children’s efforts to claim those rights as their own. Also, the agencies have now come to view their child beneficiaries as a source of revenue. As the agencies continue to face bleak budget outlooks, anti-tax sentiment, and the desire to cut state spending, revenue maximization strategies have led to conflicts between the obligation to serve the interests of children and the fiscal interests of agency self-preservation and growth. Considering just one of the agency practices of treating children as a revenue source, foster care agencies across the country are taking over a quarter of a billion dollars each year from foster children in their care. Part I of the article describes the conflict between parens patriae purpose and power in its historical, theoretical, and practical context. Part II exposes the details of self-interested fiscal pursuits of human services agencies. Part III explains the additional layers of interrelationships between the agencies and the federal government, the poverty industry, and their parent states that both heighten and further complicate the conflict. The article concludes with recommendations to restore purity to parens patriae, both in theory and in agency application.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 44

It can be downloaded from HERE.

It can also be read from "My library of publications". It is labeled: "Purpose vs. Power..." on the book shelf in the right hand column of this page.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

"THE REST OF THE STORY"

It's amazing that what Paul Harvey predicted in 1965 has come true today. 

And now "THE REST OF THE STORY"



*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

State 'nanny' plan described as 'sinister'. Proposal might even violate human rights laws on privacy, family

WND EXCLUSIVE

State 'nanny' plan described as 'sinister'

Proposal might even violate human rights laws on privacy, family

A bill in Scotland that would assign every minor a government “nanny” with the legal authority to ensure they are raised in a government-approved manner has faced headwinds from family and homeschool organizations, and now the lawyers are lining up against it.
WND reported earlier that parents in Scotland are fighting the “anti-parent” proposal. According to the Home School Legal Defense Association, the measure would assign a government social worker, or “named person, to ‘[promote, support or safeguard the well-being" of every child from birth.
The government worker would have considerable authority to order what the child and parents must do regarding matters such as schooling, health and social activities.
It's part of an initiative that calls for "Getting it Right for Every Child."
But now the Scottish Express reports the Law Society of Scotland has warned that the plan could violate European human rights laws, and one expert described the idea as "sinister."
"The proposals could interfere with Article 8 of ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life, as there is scope for interference between the role of the 'named person' and the exercise of a parent's rights and responsibilities," said the Law Society's Morag Driscoll.
"It could be interpreted as disproportionate state interference," she said.
The nation's Schoolhouse Home Education Association said the legislation "is open to abuse and misinterpretation and many parents could fall foul of overzealous agents of the state or people who are just plain busybodies."
It was First Minister Alex Salmond who recently called the plan "sinister."
The Children and Young People Bill, the Scottish Express said, also would mean children's personal details can be recorded, stored and shared through a central database.
"The legislation would also allow children who are angry with their parents to report them to their named person, with potentially devastating consequences," the report said. "Hundreds of parents have already signed an online petition demanding the Big Brother-style proposals are ditched."
It was an unidentified spokeswoman for the Scottish government who explained the idea.
"The protection and promotion of the well-being of Scotland's children and our aim of making our nation the best place for children to grow up are at heart of the Children and Young People Bill," she said. "Our focus is on the safety and protection of children. The named person, who is likely to be a health visitor, head or deputy head teacher and will usually already know the child, will be a first point of contact if help is needed. This is formalizing what should already happen and there is evidence it is working well in many areas. We are confident it is compliant with European law."
However, the Law Society raised questions.
Driscoll said the policy aims behind the legislation "are admirable and we recognize the genuine effort to improve the lives of children and young people in Scotland."
"However, we are not convinced that this legislation achieves those aims," she said.
"We are also unclear about how this legislation will work in practice and in particular, the resources required to administer the 'named person' scheme."
WND reported that Will Estrada, director of federal relations for the HSLDA, believes the idea is an outgrowth of the general belief held by organizations such as the United Nations that government knows best for everyone.
"This is an example of why HSLDA opposes ratification of [various] U.N. treaties,” Estrada said. “The argument that these treaties are mere altruistic expressions melts away when you look at what is happening in the legislatures of countries who ratify the treaties and try to live up to their treaty obligations. A ‘named-person’ for every child and national databases? No thanks.”
When WND reported earlier on the issue, it was noted that while the number of child-abuse cases in Scotland has remained about the same over the last five years, the incidents that do occur have received more media attention.
The new bill that came as a response has been praised by Aileen Campbell, the nation’s minister for children and young people.
“This government’s vision for children and young people is clear: We want Scotland to be the best place in the world for them to grow up,” she said.
The proposal outlines that a social worker will look after and monitor the child to be certain the child’s rights are not being violated based upon the standards of the United Nations Conference on the Rights of the Child.
“A local authority is to make arrangements for the provision of a named person service in relation to each child residing in its area,” the new proposal explains.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Kidnapping: CPS’s billion dollar industry

Kidnapping: CPS’s billion dollar industry
Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
July 25, 2013

Shaymus Crow’s film is an excellent overview of the treacherous acts committed by the government funded program known as Child Protective Services (CPS).
Social welfare-agencies have been allowed the right to remove neglected and abused children from the care of their families since the early 1800s.
A report by John E.B. Meyers describes the birth of the first governmental agency supposedly created to protect children. The agency, born in New York in 1875 was called the New York Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC).
According to Meyers’ report, by 1922 over 300 nongovernmental child protection societies were existing across America, the creation of  the juvenile court soon followed which was first established 1899 in Chicago. By 1919, most states had juvenile courts.
In 1825, the Humane Society, a group dedicated to curbing violence against animals and humans, founded the National Federation of Child Rescue agency which was aimed at conducting investigations on child abuse.
The Humane Society, which branched off of the British Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), pushed forward private child protection agencies modeled after “existing animal protection organizations.”
While the federal Children’s Bureau was first introduced in 1912, it didn’t receive mandatory funding until an amendment was made in 1958 which required the state to begin funding the agency.
In 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was introduced to provide “financial assistance for a demonstration program for the prevention, identification, and treatment of child abuse and neglect.”
According to Meyers’, “Prior to 1974, the federal government played a useful but minor role in child protection. The Children’s Bureau paid little to no attention to child abuse until the 1960s.”
The Social Security Act of 1935 was amended in 1962 to “provide money to expand child welfare services.”  However, in 1973 U.S. Senator Walter Mondale wrote, “Nowhere in the Federal Government could we find one official assigned full time to the prevention, identification and treatment of child abuse and neglect.”
It was Mondale’s interest and persuasion in the matter that influenced Congress to “assume a leadership role with the passage of” CAPTA.
CAPTA allocated funds for “training, regional multidisciplinary centers focused on child abuse and neglect, and demonstration projects.”
Meyers’ report states, “CAPTA played a major role in shaping the nationwide system of governmental CPS” that’s in place today.
The video’s narrator quotes Mondale stating that after the bill passed it would turn “child protection into a child snatching business.”
The legislation soon turned the operation into a $12 billion a year business.
In 1997, President Clinton passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act which was intended to “promote the adoption of children in foster care.”
ABC News aired an exclusive segment that featured interviews of foster children describing the various kinds of prescription drugs they were given under the state’s care.
Instead of finding a solution to prevent this future for children, the segment publicized the need for more state funding and further promoted the myth that children are institutionalized because of the abundance of bad parents.
Legislation that was originally created for the purpose of helping children, has transformed into a financial operation aimed at kidnapping children for the financial benefit of the state.
The more children removed, the more money that’s made. The children while under the state’s care are prescribed an average of seven medications in an attempt to keep them chained to the system for a lifetime.
The business is so lucrative that advocates like Nancy Schaefer, who aggressively took action against CPS exposing their crimes, were subsequently removed.   The media reported that Nancy Schaefer’s husband, troubled by financial problems, shot his wife to death while she slept before turning the gun on himself in 2010.
A report by Infowars.com speculated on the circumstances surrounding the couple’s death, finding it odd that a suicide victim would shoot them self in the chest.
The report read, “Even before a GBI investigation could be initiated, media outlets began pronouncing that their death was a ‘murder-suicide’ and shut off most public comment posting on their web sites.”
Most disturbing is that, not unlike many other evil government programs, the atrocities are directly funded by the taxpayer.  In essence, citizen are paying for programs that could potentially remove their own children.




*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness

[This article is not dated, but I see that it matters not, as the information is still pertinent. ]

DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News
Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it. 
The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody. 
In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back. 
In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child "Protective" Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children. 
Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed." 
It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves. 
Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business. 
Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting… 
With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children. 
Where to Find the Children
A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right? 
The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen. 
Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned. 
The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us. 
How DSS Is Helped
The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. 
For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000. 
But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights." 
In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits. 
A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families." So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe." 
If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking." The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees. 
Benefits for Foster Parents
That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized. 
After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can. 
According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.] 
Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social Security check. 
The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!] 
The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section. The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are. 
Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills." 
I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment." The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society. 
That’s just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.
May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002," the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.
I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?

  MassNews.com- Masschusett's Conservative Voice.



*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207