Minnesota University Wants K-12 Teachers to Hate America

Posted By Kyle Olson On December 30, 2009 @ 7:41 am In Culture, Education, News | 161 Comments

We’re accustomed to strange political phenomena rising out of Minnesota.

motherland

We can accept the occasional Jesse Ventura or Al Franken winning statewide office, because the state’s voters obviously like to be different.

But we doubt even the most offbeat citizens of that state would approve of the new K-12 teacher education program that’s been proposed for the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus.

While the rest of the nation is trying to force teachers to help our children reach their potential, the university’s College of Education and Human Development wants to make sure future teachers are more anti-American, so they can share that philosophy with their future students.

We couldn’t even begin to make something like this up.

Continue reading

Advertisements

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The Manhattan Declaration addresses the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/

On Nov. 20, 2009 a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders and scholars released the Manhattan Declaration, which addresses the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty.

The Manhattan Declaration

A Call of Christian Conscience

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

  1. the sanctity of human life
  2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Climate Change Scam: A Concise Summary

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/12/025239.php   Share Post   Print

December 25, 2009 Posted by John at 4:16 PM

In the wake of Climategate, common sense deniers like to say that there is lots of other evidence for global warming, in addition to that which has been debunked by the East Anglia whistleblower. Actually, however, the scientific evidence for AGW is remarkably weak. At Icecap, Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity:

It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.

• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.

• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.

• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.

• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,” or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.

For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.

The Senate healthcare bill was passed because votes were bought and sold using the issue of abortion as a bargaining chip.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/24/voting_against_government-run_health_care_99671.html

December 24, 2009

Voting Against Government-Run Health Care

By Senator Tom Coburn

This vote is indeed historic. This Congress will be remembered for its arrogance, corruption and stupidity. In the year of 2009, a Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs and embarked on an ideological crusade to bring our nation as close to single-payer, government-run health care as possible. If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal. This bill will ration care, cut Medicare, increase premiums, fund abortion and bury our children in debt.

This process was not compromise. This process was corruption. This bill passed because votes were bought and sold using the issue of abortion as a bargaining chip. The abortion provision alone makes this bill the most arrogant piece of legislation I have seen in Congress. Only the most condescending politician can believe it is appropriate to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions and to coerce medical professional to take the lives of unborn children.

Receive news alerts
Senator Tom Coburn RealClearPolitics
Health care Tom Coburn

The president and his allies genuinely believe that expanding government’s control over health care is the way to control health care costs, improve lives and extend life spans. I don’t question their motives, but I do question their judgment. History has already judged this argument and put it in its ash heap. The experience of government-run health care in the United States and around the world shows that access to a government program is not access to health care. Forty percent of doctors restrict access to Medicaid patients. Medicare already rations care and denies medical claims at twice the rate of private insurers. Nations like the United Kingdom with government run health care routinely ration care based on cost, and Canadians flock to the United States to escape waiting lines. Neither nation, incidentally, has managed to control costs as promised.

Our health care system needs to be reformed not because government’s role has been too small but because it has been too big. Since the 1940’s, government’s role in health care has been expanded to the point that it controls 60 percent of our health care economy, according the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. If more government were the answer, health care would have been reformed long ago.

Finally, like many Americans, I’ve been disappointed by the lack of civility in this debate. The backers of the Reid bill, in many cases, have been unwilling argue for what they believe in – a single-payer health care system controlled by Washington. Their hide the ball strategy led them to rush this process and ram the bill through on the eve of the most important Christian holiday when they hoped the American people wouldn’t be watching.

The rhetoric that will be remembered in this debate was not between elected officials but between elected officials and concerned citizens. The clear will of the public was not only ignored, but concerned citizens were personally attacked by politicians in power. The American people were derided as an angry mob, and were called evil-doers and unpatriotic by the leaders of the House and Senate.

The civility double standard in the Senate has been beneath the dignity of this body. Throughout this debate, backers of the Reid bill argued that more Americans will die if we do nothing than if we pass their bill. In their view, those who disagreed were not advancing a different vision for reform but were using scare tactics.

In my 25 years of practicing medicine I’ve treated countless patients who would have had their lives cut short had the Reid bill been in effect. I don’t need to conjure up scare tactics or rely on talking points written by staff. I’ve seen cancers that would have gone undiagnosed, treatments that would have been denied, and care that would have been delayed had this bill been in effect.

On the final day of debate, one of my colleagues said my argument about rationing was Exhibit A in their case about scare tactics before ignoring every substantive argument I’ve made against this bill. I would contend this bill is Exhibit A in the American people’s case against Washington. Soon enough, the American people will have the opportunity to ration the terms of the elected officials in Washington who sought to impose their will on the public.

Tom Coburn, M.D. is a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/24/voting_against_government-run_health_care_99671.html at December 24, 2009 – 03:27:51 PM PST

//

Democrats Ensure America Will No Longer Be the Last Best Hope of Earth

From http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=e9f8f293-9b92-4969-ae31-c94a109f36ad&t=c

Dennis Prager
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

As the passage of the bill that will start the process of nationalizing health care in America becomes almost inevitable, so, too, the process of undoing America’s standing as The Last Best Hope of Earth will have begun.

That description of America was not, as more than a few Americans on the left believe, made by some right-wing chauvinist. It was made by President Abraham Lincoln in an address to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862.

The bigger the American government becomes, the more like other countries America becomes. Even a Democrat has to acknowledge the simple logic: America cannot at the same time be the last best hope of earth and increasingly similar to more and more countries.

Either America is unique, in which case it at least has the possibility of uniquely embodying hopes for mankind — or it is not unique, in which case it is by definition not capable of being the last best hope for humanity — certainly no more so than, let us say, Sweden or the Netherlands.

Indeed, President Obama acknowledged this in April, when asked by a European reporter if he believes in American exceptionalism. The president’s response: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

The president was honest. In his view, as in the view of today’s Democratic party, America is special only in the same way we parents regard our children as “special.” We all say it and we all believe it, but we know that it is meaningless except as an emotional expression of our love for our children. If every is child is equally special, none can be special, in fact. If every country is exceptional, then no country is exceptional, or at least no more so than any other.

With the largest expansion of the American government and state since the New Deal, the Democratic party — alone — is ending a key factor in America’s uniqueness and greatness: individualism, which is made possible only when there is limited government.

The formula here is not rocket science: The more the government/state does, the less the individual does.

America’s uniqueness and greatness has come from a number of sources, two of which are its moral and social value system, which is a unique combination of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values, and its emphasis on individual liberty and responsibility.

Just as the left has waged war on America’s Judeo-Christian roots, it has waged war on individual liberty and responsibility.

Hillel, the most important rabbi of the Talmud (which, alongside the Hebrew Bible, is Judaism’s most important book), summarized the human being’s obligations in these famous words: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”

What does this mean in the present context? It means that before anything else, the human being must first take care of himself. When people who are capable of taking care of themselves start relying on the state to do so, they can easily become morally inferior beings. When people who could take care of their family start relying on the state to do so, they can easily become morally inferior. And when people who could help take care of fellow citizens start relying on the state to do so, the morally coarsening process continues.

There has always been something profoundly ennobling about American individualism and self-reliance. Nothing in life is as rewarding as leading a responsible life in which one has not to depend on others for sustenance. Little, if anything, in life is as rewarding as successfully taking care of oneself, one’s family and one’s community. That is why America has always had more voluntary associations than any other country.

But as the state and government have gotten bigger, voluntary associations have been dying. Why help others if the state will do it? Indeed, as in Scandinavia, the attitude gradually becomes: why even help myself when the state will do it?

Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are right about one thing — they are indeed making history. But their legacy will not be what they think. They will be known as the people who led to the end of America as the last best hope of earth.

Lincoln weeps.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

An Urgent Plea Against Obamacare by Republican Senators

Are taking this lying down or are you repeatedly voicing your opposition through e-mails, letters and phone calls to Congress?

House or Senate 877-210-5351, 800-828-0498, House (202) 225-3121, Senate (202) 224-3121, White House comment line 202-456-1111

These 10 medical care reforms below would make healthcare dramatically more accessible, affordable, portable, efficient, effective and innovative.

Both the House and Senate’s 2000 page proposals are a statist exploitation of current health insurance government-caused deficiencies and tragically prevent all these critical reforms below.

1. Stop costly government mandates and regulations.

2. Stop the unfair tax on the uninsured (and self-insured), giving them a tax-break similar to that which is already available to those with employer-provided insurance. Provide refundable and advanceable tax-credits.

3. Allow Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast. Allow plans bought in one state to be transported to another. Allow states to create their own innovative reforms to lower costs, such as retail health clinics.

4. Allow Americans’ to keep their insurance when they leave their job.

5. Allow lower premiums for healthier lifestyles.

6. Stop junk lawsuits (tort reform) that force physicians to order unnecessary tests and procedures.

7. Provide further help for those who are uninsured and have expensive preexisting conditions by increasing federal support for state-run high-risk pools. Provide vouchers for the working poor and chronically uninsured and CHIP Registration for eligible children

8. Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

9. Force Medicare and Medicaid into more competition, less monopoly, less cost shifting, less innefficiency and less fraud.

10. Allow recipients of healthcare to know the actual costs of the services billed and received (price transparency).

The Left Won’t Acknowledge the Legacy of Socialism

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/whats_wrong_with_socialism.html
Return to the Article 
November 12, 2009
What’s Wrong With Socialism?
By Joe Herring

I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama’s campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, “What’s so wrong with socialism?”
I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man — my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn’t know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible.
In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark pamphlet “Road to Serfdom,” laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of his day. With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.
How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don’t. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.
Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state. Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other. The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became “enemies of the state” for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed.
So this is the challenge we face. My young coworker had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn’t be rationalized — or better yet, blamed on others. Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don’t assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.
I successfully informed my coworker of the irreparable crack in the foundation of socialist thinking, and he is now aware of the need to burrow beneath the surface of politics to find the roots from which the tree springs. We can’t wait until the tree bears fruit to determine its worth. Fruit bears seeds, and seeds scatter. Better to tear it out as a single sapling now than to hew down an entire forest of diseased wood after it has poisoned the ground.
The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. Fellow travelers in the academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing.

If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left’s methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. The obstacle we face will become painfully clear. It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or it won’t be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/whats_wrong_with_socialism.html at December 14, 2009 – 08:22:08 PM EST

Values, Justice and Truth are in Peril in America

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/we_are_in_big_trouble.html

December 14, 2009
We are in big trouble
By Larrey Anderson

Our country is in big trouble … huge trouble. It is time that Americans took a hard look at our values, our conception of justice, and our standards for truth. This piece is intended as a first step in that direction.
1) Values
The story of Tiger Woods and his (now admitted) “infidelity” is everywhere. The Woods’ story has piqued the prurient interests of America and the world. The story has dominated the mainstream media for days while the injustice being committed against our Navy Seals and the revelation of the computer code from the CRU (exposing the biggest hoax in the history of the world) have gotten scant attention.
Tiger Woods was on the cover of every magazine and tabloid that I saw while standing in line at the grocery store yesterday. Those publications and those stories are on the grocery stores’ racks for a reason: Americans are buying them.
We are more interested in the private life of a guy whose claim to fame is that he can hit a little ball with a stick better than anyone else in the world (whoopee!) than we are about the destruction of our culture.
It is not Tiger Woods’ moral values that concern me. (Celebrities of his stature face enormous temptations from all kinds of hustlers and harlots everyday of their lives.) It is the facts that while our freedoms and Constitution crumble before our eyes … we are focused on Tiger and his bimbos.
This is our iniquity — not Tiger’s.
2) Justice
Meanwhile our politically correct military has arraigned two Navy Seals for allegedly punching Ahmed Hashim Abed in the lip. Abed was the terrorist who, several years ago, led the murder and the brutalization of the corpses of four Blackwater security people in Iraq.
Al Qaeda instructs its members how to claim and/or fake being tortured if a member of the terrorist organization is  captured.
But Al Qaeda is not the real issue here. We are. America has become so politically correct that a terrorist/murderer/sadist, who bitches about his bloodied lip, might get some of the best and bravest men on this planet thrown into jail. Americans had better pay attention, and soon, to this nonsense.
Very special and highly trained military men, including these Navy Seals, are all who stand between a worldwide Islamic war of Jihad and you and me. If we do not rise up to defend these brave soldiers, and demand a full pardon and their immediate release, here is what will happen: Dedicated young men and women will refuse to put their lives on the line if a poke in the face, of someone who would kill them in a heartbeat, gets the soldiers time in the brig.
Would you take that job? Make those sacrifices?  Put your life on the line? Would you complete your mission, catch the bad guy, and then be thrown into jail for your efforts? I wouldn’t. No rational human being would.
Justice in the real world is not politically correct. “Pretty please” or “We respect your unmitigated desire (and efforts) to kill us” are not phrases that matter to a mass murderer. And the next time some whiny PC liberal tells me “We are better than they are,” my reply is going to be, “Of course we are. That’s why Ahmed Hashim Abed only got (allegedly) punched in the face. He wasn’t shot in the head, beaten with sticks, burned, and hung on a bridge. How much better than they are do we have to be to make you happy?”
3) Truth
Since the release of the CRU documents that prove the fraud of the science behind man made global warming, Al Gore has said at least three times (Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun puts it at four) that the emails and information were all ten years old. This is a lie. It has been repeated again and again by Al Gore. Some of the emails are less than two months old.  And dozens upon dozens are less than ten years old. And everyone — but Al Gore — knows it.
Watch the video of the CNN interview with Gore here. One reporter does say to Gore, as a kind of aside, “Some of them [the emails] were from ten years ago, but many of them were far more recent than that.” 
Gore ignores the statement. Neither of the two reporters further disputes Gore’s “ten year old” fabrication. No follow-up challenge from the CNN reporters to Gore’s out right lie. None.
The mainstream media has downplayed the significance of the CRU documents. The headline of a recent AP story proclaims that the science from the CRU was not faked.  Really? As (among others) Marc Sheppard, Lord Monckton, and I have proven the CRU findings most certainly were doctored. The raw date was manipulated to “prove” that the world is exponentially warming. There is no doubt about this.
And still, the mainstream media has not challenged Al Gore on the blatant absurdity of his claim that the documents were at least ten years old and have no real impact on the AGW debate. CNN did ask him to recite his new poem on the impending doom of mother earth. See that video here. (But not if you have recently eaten a meal.  You could lose it.)
John 8:32 states the following:
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
The corollary of this brilliant piece of scripture should also be written.  It would go something like this:
If you ignore the lies, the lies will imprison you.
Wake up America. The time for the truth to set us free is growing very, very short.
Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. He is the author of The Order of the Beloved, and the memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/we_are_in_big_trouble.html at December 14, 2009 – 05:43:22 PM EST