Today’s Quote of the Day (#QOTD) is a timeless truth from Ronald Reagan:
Follow AACONS Online:
Our Latest Interviews:Discover Politics Conservative Internet Radio with AACONS on BlogTalkRadio
A politician could be caught standing over a dead hooker with a bloody knife in one hand and a bag of cocaine in the other and his defense would be, “I think it is time for us to put this behind us and focus on creating jobs for the American people.”
To the Left, “job creation” has always been one of the major selling points for its agenda, as if it were the inevitable consequence of everything they do. This is especially so during the Obama administration. Obamacare, according to Nancy Pelosi, would create “4 million jobs in the life of the bill.” Candidate Obama promised that his Greenist programs would create 5 million jobs, shovel-ready. Amnesty, or ‘comprehensive immigration reform,’ as those who don’t want to admit its amnesty call it, will supposedly create 3 million jobs, once Obama imposes it upon us. Caps on CEO salaries, according to economist Robert Reich, will “create more buying power among people who will buy and therefore more jobs.” Raising taxes on the wealthy so that the U.S. resembles “European-style welfare states” would, according to economist Paul Krugman, create jobs. Obama’s stimulus was to have “save[d] or created” 3.5 million jobs.
It is a wonder how there are any Americans left unemployed, considering all of these great job creating ideas.
In fact, the only thing that government does, apparently, that doesn’t lead to job creation is to investigate their own scandals. Politicians use the term “job creation” whenever their nefarious deeds come to light and demand investigation. It is a shield that would make Captain America jealous. They are awfully busy creating jobs for the American people, don’t you see? Why must they be put upon by having attention drawn to their scandals?
A politician could be caught standing over a dead hooker with a bloody knife in one hand and a bag of cocaine in the other and his defense would be, “I think it is time for us to put this behind us and focus on creating jobs for the American people.”
President Obama and his allies are masters of this ploy, and it is especially evident when the Obama administration is knee-deep in a scandal, as it often is. Recently political strategist Donna Brazile repeated this familiar talking point, by arguing that with regard to the IRS scandal, “Republicans are hell-bent on finding a conspiracy or identifying a scandal so that they have something to talk about other than jobs and the economy.”
This brow-beating is not new. A year ago, when IRS-gate first broke, Al Sharpton said much the same when he accused Republicans of “creating so-called scandals instead of jobs. Republicans are on a mission to make a scandal out of anything.”
And when the House Republicans held Attorney General Eric Holder for not cooperating in the Fast and Furious investigation, Nancy Pelosi responded with both speed and fury, telling reporters that the GOP were engaged in voter suppression in going after Holder “instead of bringing job-creating legislation to the floor.”
President Obama, of course, contributes to this narrative. Referring to IRS critics in Congress, the President says while, “others may get distracted by chasing every fleeting issue that passes by,” he would be focused on creating middle-class jobs.
While others may chase trivialities like violations of the Constitution, Obama is above the fray. “Keeping the economy growing and making sure jobs are available is the first thing I think about when I wake up every morning. It’s the last thing I think about when I go to bed each night,” he says.
That nearly 70% of Democrats think the IRS illegally, immorally, and deliberately destroyed emails that may have shown that they deliberately targeted and suppressed groups that opposed their party’s nominee — a suppression, by the way, that likely gave Obama his victory — is not important, because Obama is such a job-creator.
Obama probably took a cue from the Clinton administration. No one was ever more put upon by scandals than Bill Clinton. Much of his testimony during the Lewinsky scandal was comprised of impatient bluster, with him hoping to get it over with as quickly as possible, so that he could “get back to the work of the country.” Clinton at least had a pretty good economy, thanks largely to the Internet stock bubble. People were not interested in scandal when every dot-com stock they owned was making them a fortune.
One glimpse at recent polls – including the CNN poll that showed that 61% of respondents disapprove of his handling of the economy — Obama is not so fortunate. The sock puppet from the pets.com ads is a distant memory. Workers today are facing a variety of pressures — including some like illegal immigration, and Obamacare — that Obama himself has created or exacerbated — that suppress hiring.
We have the worst labor force participation rate since the Carter administration. There are over 10 million Americans unemployed, which does not count the millions whose jobs have gone from wearing a suit-and-tie to serving burgers and fries. When GDP growth hits 2%, we do cartwheels, although that’s half of where we by now should be. The last quarter it contracted. And despite promises that they would have a laser-like focus on one three-letter word: J-O-B-S: no one, not even Obama’s staunchest supporters, can say what he is doing to actually lessen these pressures, rather than increasing them.
Obama’s shield does not seem sturdy enough to hold.
To quote The Who, “meet the new boss…same as the old boss.”
Isn’t it odd that we seem to be seeing the same faces over and over again, running for office in our government? Especially when it comes to the office of Commander-in-Chief. Don’t we have hundreds — if not thousands — of politicians out there who would make fairly decent candidates for President? But what we have looks more like the prom king and queen in high school. The popular kids getting thrust in front of us over and over. And we, the American people, seem more and more like the losers, sitting at the cafeteria table having our lunch money repeatedly stolen — taken by the bullies, and being powerless to stop it.
Hillary Clinton has a past plagued by scandal, and, yet, she seems to be the only candidate that either side is talking about. Is she just the prom queen who is guaranteed to take over from our current prom king? Do both sides need her to step in so that they can keep their era of corruption going? Think about it. Though there have been countless scandals that have cropped up under this administration, no concrete action has been taken to serve justice in any of the matters. Maybe it’s not in the interest of either side of the aisle to do anything about it. The Ponzi scheme only works if all of the parties stay in line and do their part. Meanwhile, the day will come when this country can no longer stand under the corruption and mismanagement. The sad part is that, just like the prom king and queen, the vote for the presidency will be based on popularity without any regard for content of character.
The fix is in. The die is cast. Pray for America.
This week, the Wall Street Journal published a poll that, some have said, marked the end of the Obama administration.
According to this poll:
Given these numbers, it is impossible to be optimistic that – if it were possible for him to run again – Obama could win a third term, even should he want one, which he may not. However, I would argue that his presidency illustrates that it is better for the country that he, or any president, be allowed to run for third terms, or for as many terms as he or she would like.
I would no more support Obama’s third presidential campaign than I supported his first and second. This is not an Obama endorsement. But, personally, I am not a fan of the twenty-second Amendment. In fact, I am offended by it. I think it is un-American. If by some miracle there was a president in office that I believed was a cross between Calvin Coolidge and Sarah Palin, and he or she wanted to continue serving, he or she should be allowed to run, and I should be allowed to support her or him. Why should I be forced to vote for some candidate I think is inferior?
But the greater problem with presidential term-limits, besides the limitations it places upon me as a citizen, is that a second term president is not accountable to the voters.
Presidents can, for example, reward indicted fugitives with pardons, if that fugitive has donated a sufficient amount to the President’s party, on the last day of his office, as President Clinton did when he pardoned Marc Rich.
In his second term, a president can also reveal the lies of his first term. Obama did just that with his famous “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.” remark. Obama knew fully that this was not so, but also knew that if he could pretend that it was so until he got re-elected, there would be little anyone could do about it.
More recently, the Obama administration shared its contempt for the American voter by pretending subpoenaed emails from Lois Lerner and several others were accidentally destroyed, a technical impossibility for a number of reasons. Not a smidgen of corruption there, folks.
Also, we were similarly thrilled to learn that the “ringmaster of the Benghazi attacks” was captured after two years, until we realized that this ringmaster could have been captured at any time over the past two years, judging by the number of interviews he had given to American journalists. That’s a bit frustrating, but again, what can we do about it?
Presidents can also behave imperially in a second term as, again, there is no consequence to this behavior. In the first State of the Union speech after being re-elected, Obama spoke frankly, “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will . . . I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take.”
Although other presidents have used executive orders, no one has used them to affect the sort of societal change Obama wants — at least not since FDR. While most executive orders historically have dealt with relatively minor issues (except those that focused on matters of war powers and national security), in the Obama administration they have been, to paraphrase Biden, BFDs.
On immigration, for example, Obama threatens that if Congress does not act in a such a way that meets his approval by July 31st, 2014, he will use an executive order to act on his own, which may mean halting all deportations, effectively making citizens the 11 to 20 million aliens living in the United States illegally.
Days ago, Obama issued an executive order capping student loan payments to 10% of the debtor’s monthly income, potentially lowering the amount a debtor has to repay by hundreds a month, but not lowering the total amount he or she must repay (in fact, increasing it, if one factors in interest), and adding billions to an already $18.2 trillion dollar national debt.
Obama’s imperialism is not limited to executive orders, however. He also uses his executive power to direct the Department of Justice not to enforce or selectively enforce certain laws, particularly laws related to immigration and civil rights, and to direct the EPA to further regulate “greenhouse gas emissions,” which the Chamber of Commerce argues will cost the taxpayer $50 billion a year, as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs. It isn’t clear if the Chamber’s projections are absolutely correct, but it is clear that the EPA rules will be so expensive, cost so many jobs, and accomplish little — except to dramatically increase federal powers — that I doubt Obama would have pushed for them if he had to face the voters again in 2016.
And what greater act of imperialism, of disdain for the desires of the American people, could there be than to exchange an American deserter and possible traitor for five Taliban leaders, all of whom considered high risk by the CIA and at least one believed responsible for thousands of deaths? Does anyone doubt that this will likely endanger more Americans in the future?
It is my contention that if Obama was at all concerned with the prospect of re-election, he would be forced to be less disdainful of the will of the American people. Perhaps not to the degree we would hope, but certainly less so than he is today.
Without the prospect of being able to restrain the President by waging a campaign against him, some of the President’s critics are pondering if he can be impeached. He could be, and in my opinion deserves to be, but as a practical matter, it is senseless. By the time the impeachment process resolved itself, Obama will already be out of office, living in a mansion with the carbon footprint of a small city — all paid for with the fortune he will be earning from books and speeches railing against the 1% and global warming.
Obama may be tempered somewhat by his desire to be succeeded by someone like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren. But it remains to be seen if this is much of a priority for him.
Marie Stroughter raised the issue with Dr. Tom Coburn, a term-limit advocate and Oklahoma senator, when he was a guest on the AACONS radio show, in 2013. She asked him, basically, if voters should be concerned whether a politician in his or her final term still felt accountable to them. He answered, “Well, who am I really accountable to? I’m not ever running for election again, so I have four years. I’ll never face the voters of Oklahoma again. What I accountable to is the oath that I took to withhold the constitution.”
In his book, The Debt Bomb, Coburn adds, “Careerism — the philosophy of governing to win the next election above all else — is the root of almost all that ails Washington. Both parties today are putting their short-term political interests ahead of the country. Both present their positions as tough and principled to their respective partisans, but what we often see is posturing and false purity.”
Therefore, according to the doctor, if a politician did not want to turn pro, so to speak, he or she would focus less on the next election, and more on the national good.
I cannot agree. When the voters lose their ability to tell a politician, “I will vote for you” or “I will not for vote for you,” or that there will be consequences to your career as a politician for the actions you take in representing us, what, then do the voters have? This is the “increased flexibility” President Obama promised President Medvedev he would have once he won his last campaign and entered into his final term in office.
Twenty-five years ago, The Arsenio Hall Show was the hottest ticket in late-night television. It even spawned the career of a (then) almost unknown politician — one Bill Clinton, who made playing the sax look cool.
The show also spawned a catch-phrase for those indefatigable questions that haunt us, the “things that make you go, ‘hmmmm . . .’”
Fast forward twenty-five years, and a colleague of Mr. Clinton’s, one Barack Obama, has me asking questions . . . indefatigable questions. Questions that make me go ‘hmmm . . .’ Questions like:
So, I ask those reading this: if, after perusing this list, you still have questions about things that make you go ‘hmmmm . . .’ keep asking! And, should you not receive satisfactory and truthful answers, make your displeasure known at the ballot box this coming November!
As a child, the most pressing question for my generation was, “How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?” The answer, of course, was, “The world may never know…”
That’s an apt metaphor for how I’ve been feeling lately about the most corrupt US administration in recent (perhaps all) history. Just how many scandals does it take to bring down this behemoth and return it to our beloved Constitutional Republic?
Here’s a sampling of the scandals and alphabet acronyms cooked up by this administration and served to the American public:
So, just how many scandals does it take to bring down this administration and return it to the people? Unlike the Mr. Owl’s reply, I hope the world does find out . . . and soon!
President Lyndon B. Johnson was no friend to Blacks. Reports consistently point out that Johnson referred to them with the most racist ethnic slur that can possibly be directed at an African American, even when he was using the powers of the White House to benefit them. Even Thurgood Marshall, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Johnson, was referred to in this way. Yet when he realized that the Black call for civil rights was such that it would be to his political advantage to reverse his opposition to these rights, President Johnson led the way in order to ‘have those n*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years.’
I am reminded of this by the current debate over illegal immigration. The parallels between recognizing the rights of African Americans and giving rights to illegal immigrants are obviously thin, but there is a similarity in the motivation behind them. That similarity is that it is motivated by selfish interest of the Elite – the Politicians, and the Unions and Big Business groups that lobby them – rather than their altruism towards others.
Despite their appeals to our Christian values, pro-illegal immigration advocates can scarcely argue that they are acting in the best interest of the illegals themselves. They are directly responsible for the humanitarian crisis on our borders involving thousands of children abandoned by their parents so that they may enter illegally into our country; an “act of love” as Jeb Bush would say, all in the hope that these children can benefit from the DREAM act, free education, free medical care, welfare, and all the other promises they are being promised by our politicians by way of the Spanish language newspapers that spur this hope.
Rape trees – trees where those who smuggle illegals across our border hang the underwear of the women they rape as part of their payment – have long been found in border states, serving as stark reminders of the price many illegals pay to enter our country.
Furthermore, because they are able to effectively ship their poor into our country, foreign governments have less incentive to fight poverty in their own nation, so the poor who are unable to immigrate illegally to the US suffer needlessly. Why would the Mexican government, i.e., do more to find work or provide aid to their unemployed when they can have them come into the United States, not only saving them a fortune in care for their underclass, but allows them to receive over $20 billion dollars a year from the illegals who find jobs in our country?
Just as Mexican politicians who aid illegal immigration do not have the best interest of their citizens in mind, American politicians who promote illegal immigration certainly do not have the best financial interest of the American people in mind. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration costs Virginia $1.7 billion a year, or “about $625 per Virginia household headed by a native-born resident.” It is no wonder why Dave Brat was able to upset House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary.
Doctors Robert Rector and Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation also report staggering cost figures related to illegal immigration. As Dr. Rector wrote, and spoke about on our radio show, “In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household.”
The true cost of illegal immigration cannot be measured simply by adding up how much we must spend on education, medical care, incarceration, and welfare benefits however. Perhaps a greatest cost from illegal immigration comes from how much the addition of illegals to our labor pool depress our wages and employment. Especially in the Black community. Although experts may not agree on the exact numbers, they seem unanimous in agreeing with Professor Carol Swain’s statement that “[Illegal immigration] hurts low-skilled, low-wage workers of all races, but Blacks are harmed the most because they’re disproportionately low-skilled.”
Excess labor does not just affect the wages of low-skilled workers however. It affects even many highly skilled employees. Politicians – Paul Ryan, for one – often claim that there is a shortage of STEM workers in America, therefore we need “comprehensive immigration reform.” Yet Professor Hal Salzman of Rutgers’ Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy says the STEM worker shortage is a myth, pointing to the flat wages in many areas where it is claimed employers face a STEM worker shortage as evidence that such a shortage does not truly exist.
The addition of approximately 20 million illegals in the labor market can be illustrated by what we are seeing in North Dakota. Unlike most of the nation, where an employer can post an opening for a minimum wage job and be rewarded with countless applicants, there have been tales that the labor shortage in North Dakota is so severe that even a McDonalds must pay twice the minimum wage, plus give a signing bonus, to attract employees.
Rather than heed their fiscal responsibility to the people they represent, politicians of both parties push for amnesty in hope of ‘having those illegals voting for us for the next 200 years’. But it is more than that. Politicians push for amnesty because of the pressure put upon them by the strange bedfellow partnership of Big Business and Unions.
Big Business wants excess labor to push down wages. Unions – although they were previously very anti-illegal immigration, or simply anti-immigration, in order to protect the salaries of its members – are now illegal immigration advocates. Somewhere along the road they have decided the better approach would be to allow illegal immigration, and to make as many illegals as possible union members. Illegals workers can potentially cause shrinking union memberships to suddenly soar.
(Interestingly, unions undertook a similar “evolution” when it came to minority workers. Although roughly 40% of union members today are Blacks or Latinos, unions have a history of attempting to protect their White members by the use of racial discrimination against non-Whites.)
Another one of the great falsehoods of the immigration debate is that once we secure the border, a pathway to citizenship could come next. It will be much easier to claim that the border is secure than to actually secure it (which may be an impossibility).
With both parties facing pressure to enact comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty, it is unlikely that the issue died simply because the 7th district of Virginia choose Dave Brat over Eric Cantor, despite what many pundits claim. But even if this does become one of those rare incidents where politicians fear the voter more than they fear the special interest groups, it seems to me that to think, after over five years of his presidency, that something Obama wants will not happen simply because neither the American people nor Congress wants it to requires a special degree of naiveté.
Let’s set aside the stink of Benghazi that still clings to her almost two years later, but can someone tell me, with our debt over $17.5 trillion, how we could even breathe Hillary Clinton’s name in the same sentence as the words “Presidential nominee,” when by her own admission she couldn’t responsibly handle the millions she had upon exiting the White House under her husband’s administration?
According to USA Today:
Clinton’s financial disclosure forms filed in 2000 show the couple had assets worth at least $781,000 and as much as nearly $1.8 million. The form, which Clinton filed as a Senate candidate, show she and her husband owed between $2.3 million and $10.6 million in legal bills at that time, according to the Associated Press. Her advance for Living History, her first memoir, was a reported $8 million.
Yes, her defenders will quickly point out that she had legal bills. But her detractors will equally point out with rapidity: they were legal bills. Bills for their defense in the White Water scandal, Bill Clinton’s sexual harrassment claims via Paula Jones (and others). But not his impeachment legal fees — you and I paid those.
It goes without saying that that kind of money makes Ms. Clinton one of the “dreaded” one-percenters; not to mention how a sum like that makes her “out of touch” (a la the criticism of Mitt Romney’s “I’ll bet you $10,000” to Rick Perry), but do you remember her pleas to donors to help her with her campaign debt after her ill-fated Presidential bid against Barack Obama?
If someone can’t manage “a few million,” pray tell me how she would manage the world’s largest global economy?
This is a very prevalent theme. WorldNetDaily (WND), for example, the fringe right-wing site previously mostly known for its incessant questioning President Obama’s birth certificate, posts stories about ‘Black mobs rampaging through out cities and killing Whites’ several times a week – always with the inevitable eye-roller that ‘no one else in the media to report this’. So frequent is their reporting of Black mobs terrorizing White people that one wonders how it is possible that there are any White people left.
WND frequently publishes Doug Giles, a writer who has dedicated countless columns to Black Mobs Terrorizing Whites. Recently Giles wrote a column titled “Another Black on White Beatdown: Why George Zimmerman Carried a Gun and Why You Should.” The “you” here seems to be White people. Giles advises not only concealed carry, but martial arts and traveling in packs as well. What has sparked Giles latest ringing of the racial alarm bell? Three teenagers – no, sorry, let’s quote him accurately , “three, weed-dealing black teenaged thugs” – beat up a White teenager on a school bus.
Another one of WND’s favorite columnists, Colin Flaherty, is ever busily promoting his self-published book, White Girl Bleed A Lot, which is essentially a scrapbook filled with anecdotes of African Americans committing crimes against Whites. Many of these crimes are horrific. Easy to see why this book has become the bible of the “Grab your guns, White America! Race war is coming!” crowd, especially after it received a favorable review from Dr. Thomas Sowell.
David Horowitz’s site, FrontPageMag.com, isn’t quite as alarmist as WND, but it isn’t certainly isn’t hesitant to exploit White fear by showing the pictures of Blacks accused of killing a White person. I emphasize the word “accused” because this site finds it difficult to wait until these accused murderers are actually found guilty of the crimes with which they are accused before they burn the youths in effigy. Perhaps this is because they are too eager to have their readers post their comments on the story – which are invariably along the lines of “these people are animals”, “I wish Zimmerman had killed more of them”, and, of course, “If Obama had a son, this is what he would look like” – to wait for an actual conviction.
Not all of these alarmists are the White right-wing fringe types. Victor Davis Hanson, the brilliant writer often read in National Review and a favored guest for us at AACONS, isn’t, and he wrote how he warned his sons to avoid Black people. Nor is African American American Thinker columnist Taleeb Starkes and he argues against the prospect of a continuing or future race war only because “A race war requires at least two engaging races, whereas the reoccurring black-white intra-racial violence is overwhelmingly one-sided (black).”
Bill O’Reilly recently reported while doing a segment on The Factor (“Killing White People”?) the “unbelievable” statistic that “in 2011 91% of Black Americans who were murdered were murdered by other Black Americans.”
I actually struggle to comprehend why O’Reilly finds this statistic so “astonishing.” But then, racial alarmists do not rely on actual facts as much as they rely on the fear and anger they can invoke from relating horrific yet anecdotal crime stories.
It has always been true that most murders are intraracial. As Ann Coulter wrote, and discussed with us on our radio show, “looking at the race of the victims is just another way of looking at the race of the murderer.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report that between 1976 and 1997, 94% of African Americans who were murdered, were murdered by African Americans.
This is also not unique to African Americans, of course. Murderers overwhelmingly murder those closest to them; meaning their spouses, family members, friends, associates, and neighbors. According to BJS, during the same 1976 to 1997 time period, 85% of White murder victims were killed by other Whites.
It is also worthwhile to point out that not all Black-on-White crime is racially motivated. They are not battles in a war against Whites. Nor are they acts of revenge for past sins. Many are simply robberies. In fact, according to the FBI, of all the crimes committed against White people in 2010, there were only 575 anti-White incidents.
Furthermore, not only is interracial murder, even Black-on-White murder, a small percentage the overall murder rate, this figure is also skewed by the frequent classification of Hispanics as White. This is significant because Hispanics also live in the same inner cities as Blacks, and are subject to the same outrageous crime rate as Blacks. And in some areas, such as Compton, reports are that racial conflicts and even gang violence have occurred between the two groups, much like when other groups such as the Irish Catholics immigrated in large numbers to inner cities.
Author Tim Wise has an interesting look at interracial crime statistics. He writes in an essay titled “Race, Crime and Statistical Malpractice: How the Right Manipulates White Fear with Bogus Data”:
Given the relative population percentages of whites and blacks, blacks are actually more likely to be interracially murdered by a white person than vice-versa. After all, as for homicides where the race of the offender is known, 447 B-W murders as a share of the white community is 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002) of all whites killed by blacks, which is 1 in every 500,000 white people who will be killed by a black person in a given year; meanwhile, 218 W-B homicides as a share of the black community is 5.5/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.00055).
So although interracial homicide is incredibly rare in either direction, any given black person is more than 2.75 times as likely as any given white person to be interracially murdered, with roughly 1 in every 180,000 black persons being killed by a white person in a given year.
Wise certainly seems to contradict Starkes’ claim about the one-sidedness of interracial violence.
This is not to excuse murder. Every murderer should be punished. There can be little in life more tragic than losing a loved one to the hands of a murderer, regardless of the race of the victim or the murderer. I can barely even imagine it.
But we should not listen to the exaggerated claims of race war by alarmists who do nothing to substantiate their claims. These alarmists do not us safer by roiling, exploiting, and heightening racial tensions between us. They do not make us wiser. Rather, they make us bigots.
“There are many idiotic legislative actions emanating from the California State legislature and its misguided Governor Brown, drivers licenses to illegal immigrants most recently. However, most disgusting and reprehensible is this insidious idea into law allowing transgender children into opposite sex bathrooms and locker rooms without any verification. The law of unintended consequences abound, what about children who have been sexually abused? How is it that a small minority now threatens the safety and security of the greater number of our children. How did we get to this place where government subjugates the rights of parents? This law takes effect in January 2014 and represents another front for us to fight for our children.”
Note from AACONS: To help repeal this poorly thought out and biased bit of legislation, go to: http://bit.ly/CA1266Ref. CA is a heavily left-leaning state, so please help us by re-tweeting/re-posting! Thank you! –M.
© 2010-2014 African-American Conservatives All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright