I was just given a great opportunity to write for Ladies Logic, so that's where you'll find most of my posts for a while. I'll do what I can to link between both and continue to post more personal and opinion pieces here, along with updates on campus politics, which Cindy's readers will be less interested in. My more researched and state-wide entries will largely by on LL, though. My alias there is "EspressoPress," which is thought sounded cool, so feel free to stop by the site and read through mine and Cindy's recent posts. :)
My post on the Emmer rally last night is there as well:
Check it out at http://www.ladieslogic.com/component/content/article/1-governor/524-mitt-romney-rallies-for-emmer.html
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
It's that time again!
With elections just around the corner and the politically-active community in a buzz, the College Republicans at the University of Minnesota will again be hosting Conservative Awareness Week!
But, until that happens, there are still plenty of events to keep us on our toes. Tonight, for example, Mitt Romney will be endorsing Tom Emmer in a rally at the Ramada MOA, by the Mpls Int'l Airport. The doors open to the public at 7 and it's free!
I hope to get there myself so that I can post the highlights of the event both here and on Ladies Logic, but unfortunately that will be dependent on my ability to get to Bloomington fast enough after class to secure a parking spot. I'm not entirely sure how full the lot will get, but the nice woman who picked up the phone at Ramada said that anyone who gets there early enough should be able to snag one.
Another upcoming event is the President's visit to the University of Minnesota this Saturday. Traffic will be horrific so for anyone coming to that (be it for the rally or the protest or the home football game), arrive early. The College Republicans have signs made up, so if you are as disappointed with our current executive as we are, feel free to join us in voicing that.
And remember, Conservative Awareness Week kicks off on Monday the 29th! I'll be sure to post updates on that as well!
But, until that happens, there are still plenty of events to keep us on our toes. Tonight, for example, Mitt Romney will be endorsing Tom Emmer in a rally at the Ramada MOA, by the Mpls Int'l Airport. The doors open to the public at 7 and it's free!
I hope to get there myself so that I can post the highlights of the event both here and on Ladies Logic, but unfortunately that will be dependent on my ability to get to Bloomington fast enough after class to secure a parking spot. I'm not entirely sure how full the lot will get, but the nice woman who picked up the phone at Ramada said that anyone who gets there early enough should be able to snag one.
Another upcoming event is the President's visit to the University of Minnesota this Saturday. Traffic will be horrific so for anyone coming to that (be it for the rally or the protest or the home football game), arrive early. The College Republicans have signs made up, so if you are as disappointed with our current executive as we are, feel free to join us in voicing that.
And remember, Conservative Awareness Week kicks off on Monday the 29th! I'll be sure to post updates on that as well!
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Truth About the "Small Business Jobs" Act
To try to break up the flood of far-left, anti-Emmer and anti-Republican posts and columns dominating the Opinions page each and every day, despite the more diverse and moderate views of the paper's audience on campus, I recently sent in a letter to the Minnesota Daily. As it becomes less and less recent, I'm guessing my letter won't actually be posted in the paper. At least I can still post it here.
Passing the “Small Business Jobs” Act
And the Controversial Dispute behind It
With elections just around the corner, Democrats were looking for a way to salvage their approval ratings. Enter the “Small Business Jobs” Act, a 42 billion-dollar addition to Stimulus package legislation. The President announced, “Now the Republicans have said this is their number one concern. I’m going to call their bluff.”
With the way Democrats designed the bill, the federal government would control and subsidize a $30 billion lending fund, regulate which businesses and products were eligible, and allocate funds for the expenses it deemed appropriate. On top of that, there would be another $12 billion in tax breaks. 38 Republican senators, wary of further government expansion and spending, voted against the bill. Yet, it wasn’t because they were all hypocrites as a previous letter to the Daily on this subject assumed. In reality, the Republicans proposed dozens of amendments to help Small Businesses through regulatory tax relief, including a safety measure to relieve small businesses from upcoming tax hikes and a bipartisan proposal to remove the government cap on the amount of loans businesses can obtain from credit unions. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid refused to let these be put to a vote, claiming they were not “germane” to the bill.
John Berlau and Andrew Kwiatkowski of the Competitive Enterprise Institute commented on this in the American Spectator saying, “[I]ndeed, actually providing relief to entrepreneurs from the government's burdens may not be ‘germane’ to a bill that purports to help small business by setting up a $30 billion big-government ‘small business lending fund’ -- what National Review writer Stephen Spruiell has called ‘Son of TARP’ -- in which the U.S. Treasury buys up stakes in banks and directs them to lend to small business with an emphasis on ‘linguistically and culturally appropriate outreach.’”
The phrase “linguistically and culturally appropriate” is concerning as well. After the President’s attack on GM, can any of us really believe he won’t let politics influence lending decisions? Republicans attempted an amendment to make loans available without government control, but of course, Reid was quick to block it, confirming their concerns that this was more about government control.
Spruiell also wrote that "this is the kind of politicized bank lending that the government has encouraged for decades through laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act and through mandates requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to promote homeownership [that] actively drove the deterioration of lending standards that led to the bust."
With the real estate market seeing its highest foreclosure rate last month since the downturn, we are still feeling the ill effects of the last time the government micromanaged bank lending decisions. But, as we’ve seen with overwhelming public opposition to the Health Care bill and bloated $814 billion Stimulus, Mr. Obama won’t let trifles like the will of his constituents sway his stance on legislation.
Yet, the failure of similar measures isn’t the only reason many small businesses are voicing their disapproval. Pallavi Gogoi with the Associated Press reported that, “Bank executives say their customers don't want loans, even at low interest rates, because the sluggish economy has chilled expansion plans. Some say the federal money isn't worth it because they fear it will come with too much regulatory oversight.”
The President doesn’t appear to understand that what businesses need right now is not a pile of cash wrapped in bureaucratic tape. As Gogoi reminded us, people remain distrusting after the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP), which “formed at the height of the financial meltdown to pump money into banks. Banks that accepted TARP money had to later cut dividends to shareholders and limit compensation to top executives. They were also penalized for early repayment.” He also added that, “Ninety-one percent of small business owners surveyed in August by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said all their credit needs were met. Only 4 percent cited a lack of financing as their top business problem. Plans for capital spending were at a 35-year low.”
Understanding that this bill was the right intention but the wrong approach, and realizing their attempts at compromising with amendments were being ignored, Republicans went for their last option, a filibuster. The President seized that opportunity to tell the press, “Understand, a majority of senators support the plan but Republican leaders in the Senate won’t even allow it to come up for a vote,” ironically casting the Republicans as the unreasonable ones.
Because of the Democrat majority’s blatant disregard for minority views and the President’s unprofessional and unyielding partisan stance, our representatives were once again unable to produce a bill that will bode well for the taxpayers funding it. With power clearly getting to their heads, Democrat leaders didn’t stop to realize that they weren’t just silencing and bashing members of the Congressional minority, but the citizens represented by that minority. As such, it’s going to take a lot more than this last political ploy to win the public back by November.
Passing the “Small Business Jobs” Act
And the Controversial Dispute behind It
With elections just around the corner, Democrats were looking for a way to salvage their approval ratings. Enter the “Small Business Jobs” Act, a 42 billion-dollar addition to Stimulus package legislation. The President announced, “Now the Republicans have said this is their number one concern. I’m going to call their bluff.”
With the way Democrats designed the bill, the federal government would control and subsidize a $30 billion lending fund, regulate which businesses and products were eligible, and allocate funds for the expenses it deemed appropriate. On top of that, there would be another $12 billion in tax breaks. 38 Republican senators, wary of further government expansion and spending, voted against the bill. Yet, it wasn’t because they were all hypocrites as a previous letter to the Daily on this subject assumed. In reality, the Republicans proposed dozens of amendments to help Small Businesses through regulatory tax relief, including a safety measure to relieve small businesses from upcoming tax hikes and a bipartisan proposal to remove the government cap on the amount of loans businesses can obtain from credit unions. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid refused to let these be put to a vote, claiming they were not “germane” to the bill.
John Berlau and Andrew Kwiatkowski of the Competitive Enterprise Institute commented on this in the American Spectator saying, “[I]ndeed, actually providing relief to entrepreneurs from the government's burdens may not be ‘germane’ to a bill that purports to help small business by setting up a $30 billion big-government ‘small business lending fund’ -- what National Review writer Stephen Spruiell has called ‘Son of TARP’ -- in which the U.S. Treasury buys up stakes in banks and directs them to lend to small business with an emphasis on ‘linguistically and culturally appropriate outreach.’”
The phrase “linguistically and culturally appropriate” is concerning as well. After the President’s attack on GM, can any of us really believe he won’t let politics influence lending decisions? Republicans attempted an amendment to make loans available without government control, but of course, Reid was quick to block it, confirming their concerns that this was more about government control.
Spruiell also wrote that "this is the kind of politicized bank lending that the government has encouraged for decades through laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act and through mandates requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to promote homeownership [that] actively drove the deterioration of lending standards that led to the bust."
With the real estate market seeing its highest foreclosure rate last month since the downturn, we are still feeling the ill effects of the last time the government micromanaged bank lending decisions. But, as we’ve seen with overwhelming public opposition to the Health Care bill and bloated $814 billion Stimulus, Mr. Obama won’t let trifles like the will of his constituents sway his stance on legislation.
Yet, the failure of similar measures isn’t the only reason many small businesses are voicing their disapproval. Pallavi Gogoi with the Associated Press reported that, “Bank executives say their customers don't want loans, even at low interest rates, because the sluggish economy has chilled expansion plans. Some say the federal money isn't worth it because they fear it will come with too much regulatory oversight.”
The President doesn’t appear to understand that what businesses need right now is not a pile of cash wrapped in bureaucratic tape. As Gogoi reminded us, people remain distrusting after the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP), which “formed at the height of the financial meltdown to pump money into banks. Banks that accepted TARP money had to later cut dividends to shareholders and limit compensation to top executives. They were also penalized for early repayment.” He also added that, “Ninety-one percent of small business owners surveyed in August by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said all their credit needs were met. Only 4 percent cited a lack of financing as their top business problem. Plans for capital spending were at a 35-year low.”
Understanding that this bill was the right intention but the wrong approach, and realizing their attempts at compromising with amendments were being ignored, Republicans went for their last option, a filibuster. The President seized that opportunity to tell the press, “Understand, a majority of senators support the plan but Republican leaders in the Senate won’t even allow it to come up for a vote,” ironically casting the Republicans as the unreasonable ones.
Because of the Democrat majority’s blatant disregard for minority views and the President’s unprofessional and unyielding partisan stance, our representatives were once again unable to produce a bill that will bode well for the taxpayers funding it. With power clearly getting to their heads, Democrat leaders didn’t stop to realize that they weren’t just silencing and bashing members of the Congressional minority, but the citizens represented by that minority. As such, it’s going to take a lot more than this last political ploy to win the public back by November.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Truth of "Global Warming"
For day three of Conservative Awareness Week, we had the privilege of a visit from John Coleman, a man best known as the American meteorologist who founded the Weather Channel. Students strolled in and took their seats in the small lecture room in Rapson Hall Wednesday night, many also helping themselves to the free Raising Canes at the back of the room. Standing beside his slide show in his black suit and blue striped tie, Coleman introduced the discussion with a picture of the Earth. Apparently it was only 38 years ago, that this first full picture of the Earth was captured, with the sunlight hitting it just right. Young John Coleman was there at the television set, watching the photo gradually load onto the T.V. screen. It was an interesting thought to ponder for those of us in the room, especially since our memories only really ranged about 18-25 years or so. It's easy for us to forget that all that we know about the Earth is actually quite new, which is why he finds it best to retain a degree of cautious skepticism.
His message was clear and delivered with helpful visual and humorous supplementation. As he stood beside his presentation, gesturing at its main points, his career as a weatherman and newscaster were evident in his posture and speaking style. His arguments were informative and well-supported, and his monologue entertaining enough to get a group of college students to willingly spend their evenings listening to what he had to say on global warming. This holds especially true for the U of M Twin Cities campus, which is notorious for its "Green" initiatives. Ironically, no organization on campus appears to waste as much paper blanketing the campus in propaganda, as the environmentalists.
And, despite this reputation, John Coleman braved the possible backlash of questioning the globe-boiling doomsday allegedly lurking in our near future in order to reintroduce scientific facts to the discussion on climate change. He addressed the many myths about climate change, including flora and fauna dying off, ice caps melting away, terrible droughts wreaking havoc, coasts flooding, and all of the other "signs" of global warming that these politicians and leaders bent on finding means of control in order to someday construct their world government have so hollowly claimed.
Coleman, through speech and slide show, worked to shine light on the common misconceptions surrounding what we know about the environment. Cycles of change in flora and fauna are naturally occurring, along with the rise and fall of temperatures. The message we're hearing is that carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas will cause temperatures to skyrocket, ice caps to melt, oceans to flood over shorelines, droughts to sweep the earth, and various other catastrophes. During his speech, Coleman tried to introduce scientific facts and solid evidence, in order to give us another perspective on what is going on.
The first myth he addressed in detail was the alleged north pole and ice cap catastrophe. Ice on the north pole has consistently come and gone, melted and frozen, throughout the past thousands of years as far as we can tell. At one point, remember, we cold even sail ships through the Northwest Passage. Coleman added that, "The first submarine in 1960’s went to the north pole and came up through the ice. It has always been in an ebb and flow. The newspapers and websites and TV channels were full of this news, but today (the ice level) is right back to where we started and back to the norm of the last 40 years."
He addressed the picture of "drowning polar bears," made famous by global warming's poster child Al Gore, which depicted polar bears stranded on a small, floating chunk of ice, soon to tragically drown due to their homes having melted away. The shocking truth behind this photo is that this is such a misrepresentation of what was occurring, that it's actually somewhat laughable. The scientist who took this picture was later shocked to see her stolen shot being used in Gore's exaggerated and scientifically unsound politicized presentation. Really, as she and her team had crossed through there in their boat, the polar bears had swam up to that chunk and climbed on it out of curiosity, trying to get a better view of their peculiar and unfamiliar human visitors. A little while later, they dove back into the water and swam back to their usual icy shore. There was no drowning involved at all. Polar bear deaths were actually due largely to hunting. Local communities had used their fur to keep warm and their meat as food. Since their hunting has been limited, however, the polar bear numbers have apparently risen back up to 29,000 again. Yes, we were killing polar bears through our activities, but directly, not by warping the globe itself. Coleman declared, "The polar bears are thriving."
On the myth of flooding coasts, Coleman, who has himself lived on the coast exclaimed, "Ive lived there 15 and the waters right where it was when I got there. I have friends who have lived there for 40 years and its right where it was when they got there.” Of course, when this argument was brought up to Gore, he so wittingly responded that the ocean rises differently in different places. And, granted, there will be some fluctuations due to varying factors, but these sorts of differences involving a lack of rising altogether? Not likely.
The droughts. He acknowledged that we have had some rather severe ones two years ago (in Texas and California for example), but in the last week, there's been no drought. The El Niño season wiped it out. He explained that he lived through the dust bowl as a kid and that droughts come and go.
"There is no climate crisis," Coleman said. "No climate crisis at all."
So how did Al get it so wrong? According to Coleman, "This whole political frenzy, this whole political hubbub, …this whole thing would not have happened" if it weren't for Al Gore. So where did this man get his idea? After showing us a video he made about Al Gore that I'm sure anyone can find amongst his other videos on his website, Coleman's Corner, John Coleman informed us about Revelle,an oceanographer, and his fellow researchers who started the research with a small report. He involved student Albert Gore in his research later and Gore ended up running with it. The surprising twist here is that, in 1988, Revelle wrote to congressmen and women about his second thoughts. He then wrote a report urging more research before any remedial action. Gore called him senile and characteristically refused to debate on it. Revelle later delivered a speech apologizing for the research he had done which sent us so far astray. And ironically, Al Gore still would go on to receive the Revelle Award for his global warming propaganda. The video provided far more detail, but in summary, explained how Albert Gore, who had gotten a D in Revelle's class, went on to somehow win the Nobel Peace Prize for something based entirely on forged, greatly refuted, and/or later disproved "scientific" evidence. Coleman explained that hearing about these two men winning the Nobel Peace Prize for such a falsity, was what really pushed him over the edge. "I really study my issues carefully and clearly," he explained. "I studied the papers that showed up online...I talked to my colleagues and friends." When he decided to speak out against it, and produce a report on the fallacy here, he explained that he was at the time working in a journalism job in San Diego, and half expected to fired for this come Monday. Instead, he received a ton of support for what he wrote. More than 700 international scientists had then expressed dissent on man-made global warming. Coleman was invited to an international convention on climate change in New York, and he showed us the speech that he made there.
We were told they have 4000 scientists in consensus at UN. First of all, there are only 2900 members of the IPCC, and most are politicians and bureaucrats, not scientists. Only 60 scientists contributed to or reviewed the key chapter 9, and even of those, they weren’t totally convinced it was true.
From here, he moved into what he knows about the Earth:
The interglacial period is nature’s global warming. The other ones couldn’t have been man-made because there weren’t any human beings around. We didn't start building fossil fuels until recently (see picture of the graph he presented). The IPCC printed it out very differently. This became known as the hockey stick chart, produced by Professor Michael Man. We found out that the IPCC manipulated the formula for this chart so much that no matter what you put into it, it would come up as a hockey stick. All the warming there is is actually 6/10 of a degree. That’s it. Nature’s global warming is about one degree every hundred years, so there is nothing unusual about this.
So why is 4.5 billion dollars a year being spent on global warming?
The objective, Coleman explained, was to be able to tax industrialized nations in order to fund a single world government, and to help the U.N. and underdeveloped nations.
He concluded with points on energy sources and fuel. "Is it possible to have a modern, fossil fuel-powered civilization without destroying the climate and our clean air and water? Thanks to real scientists, we could. The technology we have in the 19th century allows us the opportunity to work towards this goal. What are you going to do, though? Wind power? Our wind farms have proved economically unviable because it only works between 17 and 24 mph.
"How about solar? That's beautiful if the sun is out. (He looks out the window) The sun isn’t out right now. Solar wouldn’t have worked tonight or over the winter. Even in San Diego it doesn’t nearly cut it.
"We have learned to use our fossil fuels cleanly thanks to real scientists. We can even power Las Vegas without damaging the environment. We can do it. We have done it. And I am proud of our scientists who have done it.
"I don’t want you to lose any more sleep about your carbon footprint. It is not real."
His last slide was a picture of underwear (included below), which he humorously explained was the only evidence he has seen for global warming.
From here he moved into an interesting question and answer session that I shall detail below, once I have a spare moment between final projects, papers and exams.
For more information, feel free to visit Coleman's Corner, off of the Kusi.com website. There should also be plenty of youtube videos you can access, in order to reach the other side of the story, and to understand not only what the government would like us to think is occurring around us, but what is actually occurring.
His message was clear and delivered with helpful visual and humorous supplementation. As he stood beside his presentation, gesturing at its main points, his career as a weatherman and newscaster were evident in his posture and speaking style. His arguments were informative and well-supported, and his monologue entertaining enough to get a group of college students to willingly spend their evenings listening to what he had to say on global warming. This holds especially true for the U of M Twin Cities campus, which is notorious for its "Green" initiatives. Ironically, no organization on campus appears to waste as much paper blanketing the campus in propaganda, as the environmentalists.
And, despite this reputation, John Coleman braved the possible backlash of questioning the globe-boiling doomsday allegedly lurking in our near future in order to reintroduce scientific facts to the discussion on climate change. He addressed the many myths about climate change, including flora and fauna dying off, ice caps melting away, terrible droughts wreaking havoc, coasts flooding, and all of the other "signs" of global warming that these politicians and leaders bent on finding means of control in order to someday construct their world government have so hollowly claimed.
Coleman, through speech and slide show, worked to shine light on the common misconceptions surrounding what we know about the environment. Cycles of change in flora and fauna are naturally occurring, along with the rise and fall of temperatures. The message we're hearing is that carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas will cause temperatures to skyrocket, ice caps to melt, oceans to flood over shorelines, droughts to sweep the earth, and various other catastrophes. During his speech, Coleman tried to introduce scientific facts and solid evidence, in order to give us another perspective on what is going on.
The first myth he addressed in detail was the alleged north pole and ice cap catastrophe. Ice on the north pole has consistently come and gone, melted and frozen, throughout the past thousands of years as far as we can tell. At one point, remember, we cold even sail ships through the Northwest Passage. Coleman added that, "The first submarine in 1960’s went to the north pole and came up through the ice. It has always been in an ebb and flow. The newspapers and websites and TV channels were full of this news, but today (the ice level) is right back to where we started and back to the norm of the last 40 years."
He addressed the picture of "drowning polar bears," made famous by global warming's poster child Al Gore, which depicted polar bears stranded on a small, floating chunk of ice, soon to tragically drown due to their homes having melted away. The shocking truth behind this photo is that this is such a misrepresentation of what was occurring, that it's actually somewhat laughable. The scientist who took this picture was later shocked to see her stolen shot being used in Gore's exaggerated and scientifically unsound politicized presentation. Really, as she and her team had crossed through there in their boat, the polar bears had swam up to that chunk and climbed on it out of curiosity, trying to get a better view of their peculiar and unfamiliar human visitors. A little while later, they dove back into the water and swam back to their usual icy shore. There was no drowning involved at all. Polar bear deaths were actually due largely to hunting. Local communities had used their fur to keep warm and their meat as food. Since their hunting has been limited, however, the polar bear numbers have apparently risen back up to 29,000 again. Yes, we were killing polar bears through our activities, but directly, not by warping the globe itself. Coleman declared, "The polar bears are thriving."
On the myth of flooding coasts, Coleman, who has himself lived on the coast exclaimed, "Ive lived there 15 and the waters right where it was when I got there. I have friends who have lived there for 40 years and its right where it was when they got there.” Of course, when this argument was brought up to Gore, he so wittingly responded that the ocean rises differently in different places. And, granted, there will be some fluctuations due to varying factors, but these sorts of differences involving a lack of rising altogether? Not likely.
The droughts. He acknowledged that we have had some rather severe ones two years ago (in Texas and California for example), but in the last week, there's been no drought. The El Niño season wiped it out. He explained that he lived through the dust bowl as a kid and that droughts come and go.
"There is no climate crisis," Coleman said. "No climate crisis at all."
So how did Al get it so wrong? According to Coleman, "This whole political frenzy, this whole political hubbub, …this whole thing would not have happened" if it weren't for Al Gore. So where did this man get his idea? After showing us a video he made about Al Gore that I'm sure anyone can find amongst his other videos on his website, Coleman's Corner, John Coleman informed us about Revelle,an oceanographer, and his fellow researchers who started the research with a small report. He involved student Albert Gore in his research later and Gore ended up running with it. The surprising twist here is that, in 1988, Revelle wrote to congressmen and women about his second thoughts. He then wrote a report urging more research before any remedial action. Gore called him senile and characteristically refused to debate on it. Revelle later delivered a speech apologizing for the research he had done which sent us so far astray. And ironically, Al Gore still would go on to receive the Revelle Award for his global warming propaganda. The video provided far more detail, but in summary, explained how Albert Gore, who had gotten a D in Revelle's class, went on to somehow win the Nobel Peace Prize for something based entirely on forged, greatly refuted, and/or later disproved "scientific" evidence. Coleman explained that hearing about these two men winning the Nobel Peace Prize for such a falsity, was what really pushed him over the edge. "I really study my issues carefully and clearly," he explained. "I studied the papers that showed up online...I talked to my colleagues and friends." When he decided to speak out against it, and produce a report on the fallacy here, he explained that he was at the time working in a journalism job in San Diego, and half expected to fired for this come Monday. Instead, he received a ton of support for what he wrote. More than 700 international scientists had then expressed dissent on man-made global warming. Coleman was invited to an international convention on climate change in New York, and he showed us the speech that he made there.
We were told they have 4000 scientists in consensus at UN. First of all, there are only 2900 members of the IPCC, and most are politicians and bureaucrats, not scientists. Only 60 scientists contributed to or reviewed the key chapter 9, and even of those, they weren’t totally convinced it was true.
From here, he moved into what he knows about the Earth:
The interglacial period is nature’s global warming. The other ones couldn’t have been man-made because there weren’t any human beings around. We didn't start building fossil fuels until recently (see picture of the graph he presented). The IPCC printed it out very differently. This became known as the hockey stick chart, produced by Professor Michael Man. We found out that the IPCC manipulated the formula for this chart so much that no matter what you put into it, it would come up as a hockey stick. All the warming there is is actually 6/10 of a degree. That’s it. Nature’s global warming is about one degree every hundred years, so there is nothing unusual about this.
So why is 4.5 billion dollars a year being spent on global warming?
The objective, Coleman explained, was to be able to tax industrialized nations in order to fund a single world government, and to help the U.N. and underdeveloped nations.
He concluded with points on energy sources and fuel. "Is it possible to have a modern, fossil fuel-powered civilization without destroying the climate and our clean air and water? Thanks to real scientists, we could. The technology we have in the 19th century allows us the opportunity to work towards this goal. What are you going to do, though? Wind power? Our wind farms have proved economically unviable because it only works between 17 and 24 mph.
"How about solar? That's beautiful if the sun is out. (He looks out the window) The sun isn’t out right now. Solar wouldn’t have worked tonight or over the winter. Even in San Diego it doesn’t nearly cut it.
"We have learned to use our fossil fuels cleanly thanks to real scientists. We can even power Las Vegas without damaging the environment. We can do it. We have done it. And I am proud of our scientists who have done it.
"I don’t want you to lose any more sleep about your carbon footprint. It is not real."
His last slide was a picture of underwear (included below), which he humorously explained was the only evidence he has seen for global warming.
From here he moved into an interesting question and answer session that I shall detail below, once I have a spare moment between final projects, papers and exams.
For more information, feel free to visit Coleman's Corner, off of the Kusi.com website. There should also be plenty of youtube videos you can access, in order to reach the other side of the story, and to understand not only what the government would like us to think is occurring around us, but what is actually occurring.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Cemetery of Innocents
The Display
Yesterday morning, two of my fellow College Republicans and I joined a handful of dedicated members of the Students for Life of America in setting up their third annual display called the "Cemetery of Innocents."
For anyone who passed by the lawn in front of Coffman and saw rows of black balloons attached to a variety of baby toys, diapers, shampoos, wet wipes, story books, outfits, burp cloths, etc, but did not see the sign in front of it, the 138 black balloons in this display were put out to represent the 138 babies who die every hour in the U.S. alone through abortions.
Members of the group spent the day handing out pamphlets to raise awareness of the issue and to protect the display from pro-choice students, who have tried each year to ruin the display. Actually, I was shocked and disappointed to hear that pro-choice last year students had actually rushed in with scissors to cut the strings off of the balloons. One of the SFLA members joked that it was ironic, since that wasn't very eco-friendly behavior, letting balloons loose like that. Unfortunately, after looking into it, I found out that this has happened quite a bit. This last January, at George Washington University, the College Democrats vandalized a pro-life display that the Young America's Foundation group had erected with crosses in memory of babies killed in abortions. The College Republicans, who shared a joint office with the College Democrats, came in to find that the crosses had been pinned around the office upside down with anti-Christian messages written on them and even condoms pulled over some of them. The crosses had been donated to the group for awareness purposes by a New York-based church, and this vandalism was a blatant act of assault on public property and disrespect against the pro-life students. There have been a list of incidents, ranging from tearing down and destroying or burning displays to slashing the tires of pro-life student group leaders. I was extremely disappointed to hear all of this. It's really unfortunate to see such an affront to free speech, especially on college campuses, which were meant to be forums for students to learn to open their minds to or at least respect the ideas of their peers.
Today was a beautiful day, though. Not too windy and to my knowledge things went smoothly.
The group, Students for Life of America, is a national non-profit organization, originally founded in 1988 as the American Collegians for Life. It has evolved and expanded and is now run by a board of directors, in order to create a more stable representation on campuses in order to raise awareness and promote activism on the issue. The group works with student groups on campuses across 43 states in order to educate the public about abortion, euthanasia and infanticide.
And not to worry. All of the items that were bought for the display were saved (and in some cases protected in Ziploc baggies) so that they could be donated after. The message was concise but powerful, with a shocking stat and an attention-grabbing visual that combined to spread awareness about the sheer numbers of lives lost to abortions every hour in our country.
Abortion
And, in order to do the Conservative Awareness Week's awareness topic of the day justice, I went online to the SFLA website, where they have information and facts about abortions. I know we all know that an abortion is a method used to end a pregnancy, but beyond that, most people don't know too much. According to the SFLA website's fact sheet from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1.31 million abortions occur every year in the United States. The U.S. abortion rate is unfortunately one of the highest among developed countries. In addition, if you go onto the Planned Parenthood website, it reassures readers that, "Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."
So what do abortions actually entail? I won't go into highly descriptive detail here, for those of you who are squeamish, but I am going to be honest, so if this is going to disturb you as much as it disturbs me, you need only know that there are various methods, including curettage, evacuation, extraction, injection, drugs and suction. There's a list of medical complications which come along with abortions. According to the SFLA site, these include heavy bleeding, infection, incomplete abortion, sepsis, anesthesia, damage to the cervix, scarring of the uterine lining, damage to internal organs and in severe cases, death. In addition, there are emotional complications such as eating disorders, relationship issues, guilt, depression, flashbacks to the abortion, suicidal thoughts, sexual dysfunction and alcohol or substance abuse. 52% of abortions are performed on women under 25 years old as well, so we are seeing more and more young women making this decision and then suffering the consequences of it.
While I believe strongly that abortions are morally wrong, however, my goal is to spread awareness so that when women make the decision to abort a baby, they realize that they aren't simply clicking the edit-undo keys on their computer. They really are having a baby medically murdered. The baby is extremely young and has not yet seen the world, but it is still a human life. I sincerely wish that women didn't have to pay the heavier price for unprotected or insufficiently protected sex more so than men, because it obviously took two to conceive. And, in the cases of rape and sexual assault, the woman may not have had any choice in conception. This is why I am hesitant to advocate for a law prohibiting all abortions. It's a difficult issue. On the one hand, the government does have the responsibility to enforce the protection of our right to life, and abortion is an obvious attack on that. In addition, in the case of abortions, the victim is hidden from the world, within the one who will be permitting the kill. I do feel that we owe it to these children to speak up for them in at least some way, seeing as they still have life and are still human beings. The fact that they are so heavily dependent and fragile still, and that they require further gestation and nurturing before they can speak for themselves should not provide reasoning against their right to live, but provide us an extra incentive to protect them. This is why I support raising awareness and educating women (and men) about the abortion issue. Perhaps if they realized the true nature of the procedures and the harsh reality of the choice they are making, they would decide not to go through with the abortion.
It is important that we stop letting society see murder as a solution.
Here is the link to the page where these procedures are described, and to where more information can be found:
http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/getthefacts/facts-and-talking-points/
I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves as much as possible with the harsh reality of abortion, and to do what you can to help those around you to understand exactly what such a thing means when they are considering getting one. The information is difficult to read and disturbing and painful to imagine, but if we don't become more aware of it, we will continue to death tolls in the millions every year, and it will be those innocent lives paying for society's ignorance.
Yesterday morning, two of my fellow College Republicans and I joined a handful of dedicated members of the Students for Life of America in setting up their third annual display called the "Cemetery of Innocents."
For anyone who passed by the lawn in front of Coffman and saw rows of black balloons attached to a variety of baby toys, diapers, shampoos, wet wipes, story books, outfits, burp cloths, etc, but did not see the sign in front of it, the 138 black balloons in this display were put out to represent the 138 babies who die every hour in the U.S. alone through abortions.
Members of the group spent the day handing out pamphlets to raise awareness of the issue and to protect the display from pro-choice students, who have tried each year to ruin the display. Actually, I was shocked and disappointed to hear that pro-choice last year students had actually rushed in with scissors to cut the strings off of the balloons. One of the SFLA members joked that it was ironic, since that wasn't very eco-friendly behavior, letting balloons loose like that. Unfortunately, after looking into it, I found out that this has happened quite a bit. This last January, at George Washington University, the College Democrats vandalized a pro-life display that the Young America's Foundation group had erected with crosses in memory of babies killed in abortions. The College Republicans, who shared a joint office with the College Democrats, came in to find that the crosses had been pinned around the office upside down with anti-Christian messages written on them and even condoms pulled over some of them. The crosses had been donated to the group for awareness purposes by a New York-based church, and this vandalism was a blatant act of assault on public property and disrespect against the pro-life students. There have been a list of incidents, ranging from tearing down and destroying or burning displays to slashing the tires of pro-life student group leaders. I was extremely disappointed to hear all of this. It's really unfortunate to see such an affront to free speech, especially on college campuses, which were meant to be forums for students to learn to open their minds to or at least respect the ideas of their peers.
Today was a beautiful day, though. Not too windy and to my knowledge things went smoothly.
The group, Students for Life of America, is a national non-profit organization, originally founded in 1988 as the American Collegians for Life. It has evolved and expanded and is now run by a board of directors, in order to create a more stable representation on campuses in order to raise awareness and promote activism on the issue. The group works with student groups on campuses across 43 states in order to educate the public about abortion, euthanasia and infanticide.
And not to worry. All of the items that were bought for the display were saved (and in some cases protected in Ziploc baggies) so that they could be donated after. The message was concise but powerful, with a shocking stat and an attention-grabbing visual that combined to spread awareness about the sheer numbers of lives lost to abortions every hour in our country.
Abortion
And, in order to do the Conservative Awareness Week's awareness topic of the day justice, I went online to the SFLA website, where they have information and facts about abortions. I know we all know that an abortion is a method used to end a pregnancy, but beyond that, most people don't know too much. According to the SFLA website's fact sheet from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1.31 million abortions occur every year in the United States. The U.S. abortion rate is unfortunately one of the highest among developed countries. In addition, if you go onto the Planned Parenthood website, it reassures readers that, "Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."
So what do abortions actually entail? I won't go into highly descriptive detail here, for those of you who are squeamish, but I am going to be honest, so if this is going to disturb you as much as it disturbs me, you need only know that there are various methods, including curettage, evacuation, extraction, injection, drugs and suction. There's a list of medical complications which come along with abortions. According to the SFLA site, these include heavy bleeding, infection, incomplete abortion, sepsis, anesthesia, damage to the cervix, scarring of the uterine lining, damage to internal organs and in severe cases, death. In addition, there are emotional complications such as eating disorders, relationship issues, guilt, depression, flashbacks to the abortion, suicidal thoughts, sexual dysfunction and alcohol or substance abuse. 52% of abortions are performed on women under 25 years old as well, so we are seeing more and more young women making this decision and then suffering the consequences of it.
While I believe strongly that abortions are morally wrong, however, my goal is to spread awareness so that when women make the decision to abort a baby, they realize that they aren't simply clicking the edit-undo keys on their computer. They really are having a baby medically murdered. The baby is extremely young and has not yet seen the world, but it is still a human life. I sincerely wish that women didn't have to pay the heavier price for unprotected or insufficiently protected sex more so than men, because it obviously took two to conceive. And, in the cases of rape and sexual assault, the woman may not have had any choice in conception. This is why I am hesitant to advocate for a law prohibiting all abortions. It's a difficult issue. On the one hand, the government does have the responsibility to enforce the protection of our right to life, and abortion is an obvious attack on that. In addition, in the case of abortions, the victim is hidden from the world, within the one who will be permitting the kill. I do feel that we owe it to these children to speak up for them in at least some way, seeing as they still have life and are still human beings. The fact that they are so heavily dependent and fragile still, and that they require further gestation and nurturing before they can speak for themselves should not provide reasoning against their right to live, but provide us an extra incentive to protect them. This is why I support raising awareness and educating women (and men) about the abortion issue. Perhaps if they realized the true nature of the procedures and the harsh reality of the choice they are making, they would decide not to go through with the abortion.
It is important that we stop letting society see murder as a solution.
Here is the link to the page where these procedures are described, and to where more information can be found:
http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/getthefacts/facts-and-talking-points/
I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves as much as possible with the harsh reality of abortion, and to do what you can to help those around you to understand exactly what such a thing means when they are considering getting one. The information is difficult to read and disturbing and painful to imagine, but if we don't become more aware of it, we will continue to death tolls in the millions every year, and it will be those innocent lives paying for society's ignorance.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age
Last night, in order to kick off our Conservative Awareness Week, the College Republicans group at the U of M held a screening of "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age," a documentary by the Heritage Foundation exposing the very real threats posed to us by nations like Iran and North Korea, and rogue terrorist and political groups for which this dangerous weapons technology is becoming more attainable. The documentary was an interesting introduction to the issue, posing many questions and urging its audience to really consider the gravity of the issue of ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction that our public all too often chooses to ignore, as if the issue could simply solve itself. Or maybe it's just that we have too much faith in our government's ability and will to do so.
The Documentary
Beginning with an array of clips depicting incidents throughout history involving our relations with nations such as Iran, Libya, North Korea and the Soviet Union, before addressing the issue of missile defense. It's outlined in the first paragraph of the Constitution that a government must provide for the common defense, in order to ensure the safety and stability of its people and national interests. The documentary, in true Conservative fashion also quoted Jefferson, who declared eternal vigilance to be the price of freedom. Now that we are in a "new missile age," where ballistic missiles can reach across the globe and life as we know it could end in just 33 minutes, that governmental responsibility is more crucial than ever.
President Ronald Reagan warned us not to fall to the temptation of ignoring the effects, urging us to instead create a missile interception system, and to build up our defenses. Ballistic missiles in the hands of our enemies could be used as a deterrent or threat, preventing us from going to the aid of our allies, amongst many other negative consequences.
But let's freeze for a moment. What exactly is a ballistic missile? The key to this type of weapon lies in trajectory. It is propelled into space, using the Earth's gravity in order to gain speed as it orbits the globe. It has large rockets and guidance controls, so it can either continue to orbit, or dive down for the attack.
And, while the physical damage of a near-ground detonation would obviously already be a catastrophe, having one detonate in the atmosphere above the U.S. could inflict even longer lasting damage. Such a detonation would let off an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), incapacitating every electrical system in the United States. Such a pulse would lead to voltage shortages, causing the complete shut down of electrical systems across the nation. Medical services, cell phones, transportation and traffic lights, electronic funds and media would all come to a sudden halt, putting us back to the 1800's.
And, aside from the threats of ballistic missiles, there are also biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to be thinking about. The documentary differentiated these as follows: nuclear attacks are destructive, wiping everything out physically in that area, biological warfare could bring on epidemics and plagues, and chemical warfare would be immediate, with the potential for tens of thousands of possible casualties.
The Reagan-era defense strategy, in exact opposition of the strategic theory preceding it, called for the use of increased defenses in order to discourage a missile attack from either side. This involved five blocks of capability: first, protection from North Korea, second, regional protection, third, protection from Iran, fourth, protection of our friends and allies, and fifth, the ability to defend multiple regions at once. But how did we plan to be able to stop an incoming missile? Fire control systems would be able to compute the trajectory and launch and intercepting missile ("kill vehicle") to intercept it in the air. Upon impact with the warhead, 50 percent would be vaporized, and only ten percent in the end would actually make it to the ground as debris, eliminating the majority of the threat. And by February 2008, the U.S. was able not only to hit another warhead, but to be able to hit a satellite in space, an even harder target. Technology appears to have finally caught up with Reagan's vision.
Unfortunately, we lack the capability to have this SDI system. In order to avoid the severe consequences of discontinuing our progress and deployment of missile defense, we must be willing to invest in its costs. Just look at the costs of the damage from 9/11. And that wasn't even a nuclear weapon, which would cost more like trillions. We have a 13 trillion dollar economy, and the estimates have it that it would cost us most if not all of that if we ever underwent such an attack. So really, the hundred billion dollars we'd spend on a defense system would be a necessary and logical security investment. And, having such a defense system that the President could activate could help stabilize our situation with North Korea and its missile supplies and testing, as well as to generate doubt in the minds of our enemies in general. Such a defense system could be shared with our friends and allies as well, as a means of devaluing such weapons and thereby making nuclear war obsolete.
Overall, the video was quite informative and did a good job of reintroducing a critical issue, especially now, as our President has moved on to his next big plan, with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge party, minority and voter criticisms. I didn't, however, agree with the statement that this was America's responsibility because we alone have the capacity to create these defense systems. Our allies as well are perfectly capable and advanced nations, so I do not feel that this is solely a U.S. responsibility, but a global responsibility in order to protect the world's people from nuclear war and the devastation of the use of weapons of mass destruction. In general, though, the documentary introduced the issue in an interesting and visually energetic way, and I felt it was overall well done.
More information on these threats and solutions can be found at http://33-minutes.com/, along with updates on Obama's concerning nuclear policies and the status of current attempts at negotiations.
The Documentary
Beginning with an array of clips depicting incidents throughout history involving our relations with nations such as Iran, Libya, North Korea and the Soviet Union, before addressing the issue of missile defense. It's outlined in the first paragraph of the Constitution that a government must provide for the common defense, in order to ensure the safety and stability of its people and national interests. The documentary, in true Conservative fashion also quoted Jefferson, who declared eternal vigilance to be the price of freedom. Now that we are in a "new missile age," where ballistic missiles can reach across the globe and life as we know it could end in just 33 minutes, that governmental responsibility is more crucial than ever.
President Ronald Reagan warned us not to fall to the temptation of ignoring the effects, urging us to instead create a missile interception system, and to build up our defenses. Ballistic missiles in the hands of our enemies could be used as a deterrent or threat, preventing us from going to the aid of our allies, amongst many other negative consequences.
But let's freeze for a moment. What exactly is a ballistic missile? The key to this type of weapon lies in trajectory. It is propelled into space, using the Earth's gravity in order to gain speed as it orbits the globe. It has large rockets and guidance controls, so it can either continue to orbit, or dive down for the attack.
And, while the physical damage of a near-ground detonation would obviously already be a catastrophe, having one detonate in the atmosphere above the U.S. could inflict even longer lasting damage. Such a detonation would let off an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), incapacitating every electrical system in the United States. Such a pulse would lead to voltage shortages, causing the complete shut down of electrical systems across the nation. Medical services, cell phones, transportation and traffic lights, electronic funds and media would all come to a sudden halt, putting us back to the 1800's.
And, aside from the threats of ballistic missiles, there are also biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to be thinking about. The documentary differentiated these as follows: nuclear attacks are destructive, wiping everything out physically in that area, biological warfare could bring on epidemics and plagues, and chemical warfare would be immediate, with the potential for tens of thousands of possible casualties.
The Reagan-era defense strategy, in exact opposition of the strategic theory preceding it, called for the use of increased defenses in order to discourage a missile attack from either side. This involved five blocks of capability: first, protection from North Korea, second, regional protection, third, protection from Iran, fourth, protection of our friends and allies, and fifth, the ability to defend multiple regions at once. But how did we plan to be able to stop an incoming missile? Fire control systems would be able to compute the trajectory and launch and intercepting missile ("kill vehicle") to intercept it in the air. Upon impact with the warhead, 50 percent would be vaporized, and only ten percent in the end would actually make it to the ground as debris, eliminating the majority of the threat. And by February 2008, the U.S. was able not only to hit another warhead, but to be able to hit a satellite in space, an even harder target. Technology appears to have finally caught up with Reagan's vision.
Unfortunately, we lack the capability to have this SDI system. In order to avoid the severe consequences of discontinuing our progress and deployment of missile defense, we must be willing to invest in its costs. Just look at the costs of the damage from 9/11. And that wasn't even a nuclear weapon, which would cost more like trillions. We have a 13 trillion dollar economy, and the estimates have it that it would cost us most if not all of that if we ever underwent such an attack. So really, the hundred billion dollars we'd spend on a defense system would be a necessary and logical security investment. And, having such a defense system that the President could activate could help stabilize our situation with North Korea and its missile supplies and testing, as well as to generate doubt in the minds of our enemies in general. Such a defense system could be shared with our friends and allies as well, as a means of devaluing such weapons and thereby making nuclear war obsolete.
Overall, the video was quite informative and did a good job of reintroducing a critical issue, especially now, as our President has moved on to his next big plan, with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge party, minority and voter criticisms. I didn't, however, agree with the statement that this was America's responsibility because we alone have the capacity to create these defense systems. Our allies as well are perfectly capable and advanced nations, so I do not feel that this is solely a U.S. responsibility, but a global responsibility in order to protect the world's people from nuclear war and the devastation of the use of weapons of mass destruction. In general, though, the documentary introduced the issue in an interesting and visually energetic way, and I felt it was overall well done.
More information on these threats and solutions can be found at http://33-minutes.com/, along with updates on Obama's concerning nuclear policies and the status of current attempts at negotiations.
Starting Conservative Awareness Week
Hello again! I'm sorry I was MIA for a little bit there. I still am a college student after all, so midterms had to take priority for a week or two.
But now that Conservative Awareness Week is starting, I had to jump back in.
Awareness Week will kick off tonight at 7 pm in Coffman, where there will be a screening of "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age." Tomorrow morning, I'll be waking up far earlier than my strategically organized class schedule has ever required in order to help set up another one of the week's events, the Cemetary of Innocents. This is put on by Students for Human Life in order to raise awareness about the many lives lost to abortions. For anyone who will find time to pass by the U of M's Coffman plaza between 9 am and 3 pm, I highly encourage a visit. On Wednesday, John Coleman, best known as one of the co-founders of The Weather Channel, will be speaking out about the fallacies of global warming propaganda, a political exaggeration of some of the effects humans have had on the naturally occurring cycle of climate change. This will be at 7:30 in Rapson Hall, room 43, and there should be free food as well. Thursday the 22nd will be both the Support the Troops Rally, which we purposely put on during the same day that anti-war protesters call "zero recruitment day" as well as a visit from Karl Rove. Rumor has it that "zero recruitment day" as a peace protest has ironically had a habit of turning violent, with protesters breaking windows and flooding into recruitment offices. That is why conservative, libertarian and other Republican groups rally to literally support their troops on that day. I will most definitely be blogging more on the details of that later in the week. Karl Rove former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser to President George W. Bush will also be speaking in Smith 100 at noon! Finally, on Friday we'll be closing up with a mixer!
On another note, I wanted to post a link to something I was happy to see in the editorials of the Daily. The article discusses how disagreeing with the current administration so often leads to unjustified accusations of racism, and how, if that is how discourse is to be viewed, perhaps we really weren't ready for a black president. Written by fellow undergrad, John Eloranta, it's a concise and worthy read. Below is the link to the MN Daily's website where you can see for yourselves!
http://www.mndaily.com/2010/04/13/perhaps-america-was-not-ready-black-president
But now that Conservative Awareness Week is starting, I had to jump back in.
Awareness Week will kick off tonight at 7 pm in Coffman, where there will be a screening of "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age." Tomorrow morning, I'll be waking up far earlier than my strategically organized class schedule has ever required in order to help set up another one of the week's events, the Cemetary of Innocents. This is put on by Students for Human Life in order to raise awareness about the many lives lost to abortions. For anyone who will find time to pass by the U of M's Coffman plaza between 9 am and 3 pm, I highly encourage a visit. On Wednesday, John Coleman, best known as one of the co-founders of The Weather Channel, will be speaking out about the fallacies of global warming propaganda, a political exaggeration of some of the effects humans have had on the naturally occurring cycle of climate change. This will be at 7:30 in Rapson Hall, room 43, and there should be free food as well. Thursday the 22nd will be both the Support the Troops Rally, which we purposely put on during the same day that anti-war protesters call "zero recruitment day" as well as a visit from Karl Rove. Rumor has it that "zero recruitment day" as a peace protest has ironically had a habit of turning violent, with protesters breaking windows and flooding into recruitment offices. That is why conservative, libertarian and other Republican groups rally to literally support their troops on that day. I will most definitely be blogging more on the details of that later in the week. Karl Rove former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser to President George W. Bush will also be speaking in Smith 100 at noon! Finally, on Friday we'll be closing up with a mixer!
On another note, I wanted to post a link to something I was happy to see in the editorials of the Daily. The article discusses how disagreeing with the current administration so often leads to unjustified accusations of racism, and how, if that is how discourse is to be viewed, perhaps we really weren't ready for a black president. Written by fellow undergrad, John Eloranta, it's a concise and worthy read. Below is the link to the MN Daily's website where you can see for yourselves!
http://www.mndaily.com/2010/04/13/perhaps-america-was-not-ready-black-president
Posts
