Danger ahead — Part I

Diário do Comércio, Olavo de Carvalho

Murdered by fanatical countrymen, Anwar El-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin paid the ultimate price for peace, but the shelf life of the product they purchased is rapidly expiring. Hosni Mubarak’s downfall removes from the scenario one of the few obstacles that have delayed the establishment of the grand Islamic strategic unity designed to establish the Universal Islamic Caliphate, and in so doing, to wipe Israel off the map. A few factors, which the enlightened minds of the usual international commentators cannot even remotely discern, contribute to the rise in danger level of this moment to the nth degree:

The Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological matrix of the revolutionary forces in the Islamic world, may not have given the initial impetus to the rebellion in Egypt, but it is surely the only political organization prepared to take advantage of the chaos and rule the country after Mubarak’s exit. The U.S. government is well aware of this and welcomes the rise of the Brotherhood, proving once again that Barack Hussein Obama has been deliberately working in favor of the enemies of the West. The soothing evasive responses by the State Department in recent days are so contradictory that they amount to a confession of falsehood: first, the Department of State swore that the Brotherhood would remain on the sidelines; then, when it became impossible to continue believing this, it assured us that the Muslim organization had changed, that it had become peaceable and meek as a lamb. Commentators hostile to the government noted that, in turning against Mubarak, Obama was following the example of Jimmy Carter, who, under the same pretext of promoting democracy, helped overthrow an allied government and ended up turning Iran into one of the most fearsome enemies of the United States, a dictatorship a thousand times more repressive than that of the former Shah. The difference, I believe, is that Carter seems to have acted out of sheer stupidity, while it is quite evident that Obama, whose career was sponsored by a Saudi pro-terrorist prince, and whose ties with the radical left are the most compromising you can imagine, is pursuing a rational plan designed to weaken the position of his country in the international context while systematically demolishing the economy at home.

The agricultural policy of the Obama administration seems to have been calculated to foment rebellion. Egypt, a desert country, depends primarily on American wheat, the price of which has risen 70 percent in the last months even as the dollardecreased in value, creating an untenable situation for the Egyptian people. Months earlier, economic analysts warned that the whole thing was about to explode (see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/ 2011/01/31/107813/egypts-unrest-may-have-roots-in.html ).

In other Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen similar rebellions are gradually taking shape, and they are always directed to the same goal: to eliminate pro-Western governments and expand the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. The state of panic that has spread among these governments can be assessed by the fact that, in recent months, they have imported more wheat than ever before, making the life of Egyptians even harder. [End of Part I. To be continued].

Translator: Alessandro Cota, Reviewer: Don Hank

Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is also the founder of the Inter-American Institute. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Mitt joins Obama, Carter in calling radical Islamic mob “democratic”

by Don Hank

Mitt Romney has broken with conservative opinion in his statement on the Egyptian crisis, coming down on the side of the mob of angry Islamists and Barack Obama (see linked article):

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-Mubarak-Should-Go/2011/02/01/id/384619?s=al&promo_code=B965-1

Obama, who has in fact demanded Mubarak’s immediate withdrawal, saying it “must begin now” (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41377934), is following in the footsteps of President Jimmy Carter, who — you may recall — righteously demanded, back in the 70s, that the Shah of Iran be deposed because he was not democratic enough. The assumption was that whoever replaced the Shah would, of course, be democratic.

So once the Iranian radical clerics saw that the Shah would get no more support from the US, they moved in for the kill, long knives drawn. The Shah’s overthrow paved the way for the eminently authoritarian Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly took the US embassy personnel captive, as a way to say “thanks” to Jimmy Carter for all the support.

That went so well that, several years later, the democratic Khomeini’s successors eventually chose radical Islamist Akhmadinejad, who hates Western style democracy, as the leader of Iran. Democratic uprisings are now put down with an iron hand in Iran, but after all, that’s no longer important. The US democrats got what they wanted – elimination of a true American ally in the Middle East and his replacement with a man who hates America and Israel.

So now, Mitt Romney is in turn following Obama’s – and, let’s not forget,  Hillary’s — lead in denouncing Mubarak in Egypt because, after 40 years of serving as an invaluable go-between for Israel and the rest of the Middle East, why, it turns out he, like the Shah, is not democratic, never has been. Hillary was quick to scold Mubarak for not letting the Islamic radicals have their fun and organize his overthrow via the internet.

Discussion in the media generally portrays the Egyptian mob as the good guys, just as the media – and Carter – portrayed the Khomeini’s supporters during the 1978 upheaval in Iran.

But the persecution of Christians (as well as of Jews and Baha’is) was stepped up once the Khomeini was in power and Christians were forced out of their homeland. The media have forgotten that just a few weeks ago, a Coptic Christian church was burned by some of this same mob that now demands Mubarak’s overthrow.

The parallels are significant and if the lessons are clear they are clearly not learned.

If this Egyptian mob behaves the way the Iranian mob did in 1978 and the majority of Christians are driven from their homeland, remember the names:

Obama

Romney

Hillary

as being solidly behind the overthrow of a leader who played the lead role in stabilizing the region.

And then ask yourself if Mitt is your man in 2012. (But don’t forget to save a copy of the above-linked article, since Mitt has a habit of flip-flopping on everything as the wind changes directions or as he moves from one audience to another. One of his favorite lines is “I never said that.”)

Here is a brief profile for those not familiar with Mitt and his MO:

http://laiglesforum.com/mitt-romney-the-gops-bridge-to-oblivion/773.htm

Shifting the blame from Left to greed

Blaming greed for failed leftist policies

Donald Hank

The Pope has said, over the Christmas holiday, that the world must overcome greed to get through the current economic crisis.

With all due respect for the Pope, whose stance on social issues are to be applauded, both Protestantism and Catholicism, while blaming greed, have failed to grasp the nature of the Left and its role in crises such as the financial and economic crises gripping the world.

The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Jimmy Carter) and the way it was enforced, including the role of ACORN, played a major role in bringing down the banks. Generally, the trend to lend money, particularly mortgages, to people with no down payment and even without proof of employment, goes against all common sense and good banking practice, which has been in place since the beginning of time and throughout the world, and has proved disastrous. And yet so many are in denial, even to the utterly absurd point of casting all the blame on conservative policies and seeing the Democrats as being more economically astute and hence capable of pulling us out of the current crisis of their own making — sort of like Clinton “reforming” the failed welfare created by his party. Anyone paying attention in the years since 1995, when Clinton ordered the banks to lend a trillion dollars to “underserved communities,” would have been able to foresee this collapse. Some actually did, including a New York Times writer in 1999.

I suppose it could be argued that the Left, in its own way, represents greed, but it is probably more appropriate to call it ideologically motivated rather than greedy. Ideological motivation, rather than common sense, has caused the greatest destruction known to man — under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

None of these men’s political actions were greed-motivated in the accepted sense of the word. In their decisions that led to the murder and starvation of millions, they were, however, blinded by leftist utopian (revolutionary) ideology — a desire for a better world, for change, and ironically, for a world with less greed.

Ideology killed 100 million innocent people in the last century (see “The Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois). No other factor, including greed, has ever done anywhere near that much harm.

French mainstream press confirms our assessment of the financial crisis

French mainstream press confirms our assessment of the financial crisis

 

Some American news consumers insist that anything not based on mainstream reports is not worth their while reading. In fact, I just heard Alan Colmes attacking Jerome Corsi on his book The Obama Nation and one of his chief criticisms was that Corsi uses conservative media as factual support.

Now, I have previously refuted at this site the leftist view that our current financial crisis is due to rampant laissez-faire free-market finance. I have shown, based on various sources, that in fact, the blame lies squarely with the government, and particularly with the CRA and its beefed up enforcement under Clinton, and unfortunately, under second-term George W. Bush as well. Certainly, some readers who think like Alan Colmes were skeptical and dismissive of my facts, even though most come from neutral sources.

That is why I was delighted when a French colleague recently sent me an article from the online version of the daily newspaper Figaro confirming my assessment of the financial crisis and its origins.

Now, while the Left in France does classify Figaro as right of center, you need to understand that this is a highly respected century-old publication that enjoys a very large hardcopy readership, with over 400,000 copies distributed and with an amazing 4.224 million unique on-line visitors, making it the number one news site in France today.

By contrast, the newspaper at the other end of the political spectrum, Libération, has a hardcopy readership of only 160,000 and claims only 150,000 visitors to its web site.

Clearly, French readers on both the Left and Right trust and prefer Le Figaro.

 This is why I took the pains to translate Figaro’s recent article “Subprime accused, State guilty” by Vincent Bénard.

This translation is one item you can safely forward to your most skeptical friends.

Donald Hank

 

 

Translation  of :

Subprime: market accused, State Guilty

 
09/09/2008 | Updated : 10:43 |

 

Vincent Bénard, President of the Hayek Institute of Brussels, author of “Le Logement, crise publique, remèdes privés” (Romillat), reviews the subprime lending crisis and takes the side of the free economy when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two mortgage refinancing agencies, are placed under the conservatorship of the United States government.

The cause is understood by many observers: the subprime financial crisis is due to the madness of the markets and shows the limits of unbridled finance.  And they urge more public regulation of financial institutions.

Free enterprise is the whipping boy again, because there is no market more perverted by the intervention of the federal government than that of mortgage credit in the United States.

The two institutions with the cute nicknames Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) bear a heavy weight of responsibility in the financial unmooring of the American banking system.  The former was initially a government agency created in 1938 by the FDR administration to issue low interest mortgages thanks to federal guarantees, which supplied liquidity to a home loan market at low rates accessible to lower-income families.

In 1968, the Johnson Administration, realizing that the State-guaranteed commitments of Fannie Mae were becoming broader and would be subject to the lending capacity of a treasury department mired in financing the Vietnam War, arranged for it to be privatized.  Then in 1970, the Nixon administration created Freddie Mac to provide a semblance of competitiveness in this mortgage credit refinancing market.

This background provided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a hybrid status of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE).  Thus, they were private but legally bound to deal exclusively in home loan refinancing under federal control in exchange for tax breaks.  Worse yet, while being officially private, the two agencies have always been considered – thanks to their public sponsorship and their social role, to benefit from an implicit guarantee on the part of the American Treasury!

Privatized benefits, collectivized losses: such a cocktail was bound to prompt the executives of the GSEs to take excessive risks if the state sponsorship came up short.  This is exactly what happened in the 1990s.  It was reminiscent of a famous French scandal…[The author is referring to the Credit Lyonnais scandal in which the French government bailed out that bank]

The sponsorship of these two enterprises was transferred to the US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) in 1992, because that agency wanted to influence GSE-financed loans to satisfy a major objective of any self-respecting politician in America, namely, increasing the home ownership rate among low-income populations, notably minorities.

Thus, the HUD forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase both the volume and the proportion of refinanced subprime credits (up to 56% in 2004).  To make matters worse, one of the HUD bosses, fearing that the declaration of risks taken by the two GSEs in order to satisfy these rules, would cause the markets to lose confidence in them, solved the problem by making it perfectly legal for them not to disclose too many details about their exposures.

Thus, using increasingly complex mortgage products, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refinanced more than five trillion dollars in credits, or 40% of American homes, including more than half of subprime credits even though they did not have enough of their own funds to commit to such amounts.  As a result, the banks issuing these credits could afford not to be too particular about the loans they authorized, because there were two refinancers on the stock market to back them up.  Countrywide, the bank whose lending policies to lower-income families is now vilified, was incensed only three years ago by the executives of Fannie Mae for their brash subprime lending policies.

But the downturn in the economic boom multiplied borrower defaults, and the two GSEs are threatened with not being able to meet their obligations, which could spread to all institutional investors.  Now the State is urgently calling for their rescue, which will cost the taxpayer several hundred billion dollars.

A second public intervention expanded bank excesses in granting credits to insolvent families.  In the 1990s, studies showed that members of black and Hispanic communities had loan applications turned down somewhat more than whites or Asians, although these refusals only amounted to one application out of four.  Certain lobbies saw in this not a logical reflection of less wealth in these communities but rather proof of purported racism in the financial world.   

An antidiscrimination law of 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), was thus strengthened in 1995 to crack down on banks refusing credit to minorities under penalty of greater sanctions.  The banks were thus obliged to partially relinquish the precautionary role they normally play when refusing a loan to a person who is objectively less solvent.  No big deal: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to refinance these shaky loans!

Today, many experts believe that, without the CRA, and without the GSEs, minorities would have more access to property than they now do, less quickly but more soundly.  By trying to artificially accelerate what the free economy accomplished at its own rate, it was the State that, through both regulations and legislation, led the actors in the credit chain to behave irresponsibly, causing a serious financial crisis and resulting in the failure of many families it purported to help.

Translated by Donald Hank

 


[1]

The REAL giving myths

 

 The REAL giving myths

By Donald Hank

In an article Giving in Today’s Economic Crisis, Dr. Steve McSwain (author of the book The Giving Myths) advises Christians to keep on giving despite the economic climate. Commenting on the causes of the crisis, writes:

…It’s not just corporate big shots, however, who are to blame for the failure in our financial markets. Granted, many of them have watched their companies close while they’ve safely floated away in “multi-million dollar parachutes.” But, there are many ordinary folks who are to blame, too. The majority of people in our culture have, in the words of Will Rogers, “borrowed money they don’t have, to buy things they don’t need, to keep up with people they don’t even like.”

Dr. McSwain never once mentions government culpability in this article. While claiming to be a myth buster, he seems to be a victim of the most pernicious myth of our time, namely, that the recent bank meltdown is due almost exclusively to Wall Street executives on the one hand and to you on the other. His article shows absolutely no recognition of the root causes of the problem, namely, government forcing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) like Fanny and Freddy to give (under the CRA) to their favorite charities, the interest groups, in order to score political points – by forcing them to treat high-risk borrowers like low-risk borrowers.

The press release then gives advice to parents:

Don’t fret over the money markets, especially in front of the kids.

So not only does the author deny the root causes of the crash (or is he ignorant of them?), but he actually advises parents to make sure the kids don’t catch wind of this meltdown at all. In other words, let’s make sure history gets repeated, through ignorance. Continue reading

Obama can’t fix what his party broke

Obama can’t fix what his party broke

 

by Donald Hank

Before reading further, make sure you see this amazing video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o

 

Did you see the debate last night?

Despite his relaxed exterior,and his pontifications on the economy, Obama was on the defensive, as well he should have been. McCain knew stuff he didn’t know, like the difference between a strategy and a tactic, or the names of presidents in Eastern Europe. After McCain rattled off these names and associated facts, Obama could only say “I agree with Senator McCain on this.” It was obviously all he could say. And then there was the gaffe about “taking out” Pakistan. And the misquote of Kissinger. Not a good night for Barack.

McCain was like a father lecturing to a son who hadn’t done his homework.

Again, Obama tried to make the claim that McCain is a laissez-faire capitalist who wants no regulation of the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and, unfortunately, McCain muffed his chance to really explain the crash mechanism as well as Barack’s (and the Democrats’) primary role in the crash. Republican politicians seems to have little understanding of this mechanism, but it is all important for voters to know.

Folks, I had written a column on Bush’s role in the bank crashes that some thought was blasphemous, but what I said had to be said and no one else was willing to say it (that’s what Laigle’s Forum is all about, you know). And now we know the role Bush played in bringing down the banks. So is the bank crash all about Bush?

Not by a long shot, although he aided and abetted. It is more about Obama, his pals and his party. Much more.

I believe Bush’s role is related to his blind belief in New Age Christianity. As I have shown in various columns, evangelical Christians have been brainwashed by the Left into accepting what we might call “Christian socialism,” which includes teachings of globalism and surrender of sovereignty. Mainstream pastors now talk as though God had added an eleventh commandment: Thou shalt share the wealth. Indeed, my Brazilian colleague Olavo de Carvalho showed that the revolutionary mindset, which we now call the Left, started as a Christian heresy in the 13th century. Strangely, this heresy, which teaches that Christians must build the kingdom of God by eliminating social injustice, is now becoming the dominant doctrine in America, to our great peril, and the latest financial crash is its spawn. This heresy was first introduced into the American church by way of the far Christian Left (Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo) and was mainstreamed by preachers like Robert Schuller and later his protégées such as Rick Warren as well as supposedly “conservative” church leaders. If this sounds like blasphemy to you, you are no doubt a true believer in the emergent church’s New Age teachings. Beware.

But yes, the crash is really mostly about Obama and his party, which sabotaged American business.  Characteristically of the Left, they behaved like naughty school kids who made the spitballs and let other kids throw them. That’s how it works. There are always some smart aleck troublemakers who are highly popular and the other, shy kids with a good upbringing, want to imitate them. Pretty soon the kids with the good upbringing are the worst offenders in the schoolyard and the smart alecks are posing as angels, laughing up their sleeves as the poor suckers get punished.

Naughty boy Jimmy Carter (another Christian leftist, by the way) started things off by introducing the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, which the Democrats passed. This was a typical Carter goody-goody initiative to bring housing to people who would only get housing if you twisted their arms and made them pay no more than they would pay to rent. You know, the group we used to be called poor credit risks. Now we call them the “underserved.”

The program was modestly dimensioned at first and ran with no major glitches until Clinton took it into high gear, demanding $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages, with the semi-government bureaucracies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac leading the charge. Banks that could not or would not comply were punished. Punished for implementing nothing other than good business practice, mind you! (Remember that government-business partnerships are a feature of fascism, hardly the American way).

Then Bush morphed into Clinton on steroids and all but doubled the percentage of subprime loans, but added the cherry to the sundae with his “zero down payment initiative.”

There were a few futile attempts to put the brakes on, notably Senator McCain’s attempt in 2005 to enact the Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act. The Democrats blocked it. Obama doesn’t want you to know any of this, and the networks and mainstream media are helping him hide it and sell his fiction.

In all fairness to Bush, he too had tried to rein in Fanny and Freddy, back in 2003, but ran up against the Democrats.

So while Bush must take some of the blame, because he did push for higher percentages of sub-prime mortgages and his administration did write the disgraceful “Zero-Downpayment Initiative,” he was, after all, just following the Democrats’ lead and, I believed, trying, in a bungling way, to be a good little Christian, guided, unfortunately, by principles of the Christian Left, which had subtly and gradually become the mainstream in America.

Bottom line: while Obama claims regulation is necessary and accuses McCain of not wanting it, it was McCain himself who tried to introduce regulatory legislation that would help remedy the damage done by the Democrats through over-regulation of the socialist kind.

Keep that in mind when you go to the polls.

 

 

Another video on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

White men can’t negotiate / Parent-induced transgender disorder

Comments by Don Hank:

White men can’t negotiate

In the article linked below (and here), Joan Battey is right as usual. US economic woes most certainly are not all China’s fault, not by a long shot.

The US has 2 problems when dealing with foreign powers:

We hurt ourselves by giving away far too much and we hurt other nations through unintended consequences.

Our rush to grant China Most Favored Nation status with no meaningful checks and balances destroyed American industry, sabotaged our trade balance and now is also starting to hurt China.

I have been hearing for years from my China sources that poor Chinese are groaning under the high prices of real estate and staple goods. These sources now also tell me that many of China’s factories are closing due to rising labor and other costs. This is partly due to neurotic US policies, which while promising the Chinese juicy manufacturing contracts, also pressure China to offer above-slave wages and more benefits to workers.

On the simplest level, Americans are lousy at negotiating, while Chinese are masters of the art.

Back in the 80s, I once gave English lessons to a man who headed the Taiwanese trade delegation to the US. Being Chinese he was a natural negotiator. The Chinese principle of negotiating for anything is to ask for everything and promise nothing in return, and then “compromise” until an agreement is reached that gives the Chinese the lion’s share and the other side the scraps. The US side never seems to notice this, let alone learn from it.

For as long as I can remember, the US negotiation method has been just the opposite: We offer and promise everything and ask nothing in return, assuming that the other side will be just as fairminded as we are. The fact that this fails every time never deters us from proceeding with the same policy each subsequent time.

Our trade deficit problem with China is due almost entirely to this masochistic negotiating principle.

Jimmy Carter and his Panama Canal deal are a perfect example: In negotiations with then Panama President Omar Torrijos, he listened to the latter’s argument that Panama is a sovereign country and that the US needs to respect that. Instead of mentioning the obvious, namely, that without US intervention, there would have been no Panama in the first place, and without American ingenuity and the sacrifice of American lives and labor, there would never have been a Panama Canal, the pathologically naïve Jimmy rushed to sign the most self-immolating treaty in American history, giving the Canal to the “Panamanian people” (read: the Panamanian oligarchy) with virtually no strings attached, except the right to intervene should the canal be attacked. Thus Americans get to risk their lives to save someone else’s property.

If America does not learn to negotiate like a business person soon, we will be out of bargaining chips altogether!

Click here for: Passing the “depression?” blame buck: Note entirely China’s fault

By Joan Battey

Parent-induced “transgender disorder”

In the following article, an “expert” on transgender disorder tells us “All I know is that when I see preadolescents [with transgender disorder], they have been dressing in the underwear of the other sex for years. These kids are almost certainly transgendered.”

This doctor is missing the obvious: no child would be able to wear underwear of the opposite sex unless an adult parent or guardian, provided the child with that underwear. If my wife caught our daughter with her brother’s underwear after her morning shower, or if she saw boy’s underpants in her hamper, that would sound an alarm and we would immediately tell our daughter that that underwear is not hers, and that she needs to wear girls’ underwear. That would end the “confusion” in the child’s mind. (Of course, in a few years, that kind of common-sense behavior on the part of parents may well be considered child abuse! Parents may soon have to defend their right to tell their daughter she is a girl or their son he is a boy! California’s laws may have paved the way for this madness).

Clearly, “transgender disorder” is something facilitated by parents who, motivated perhaps by a pathological desire for publicity, want their kids to be transgendered. Through the subtlest suggestion, or by collaborating with the child’s illogical whims, parents are the ones responsible for this “disorder,” and it is they who need treatment.

Thus, it is all up to parents how children see themselves. But ever since Dr. Spock wrote his first toxic parenting texts, we have taught parents that it is wrong to discipline children because this may cause them trauma, when in fact, being truthful and providing guidance-such as the loving admonition “you are a boy and this is how boys behave”-is what children desperately need, now more than ever, and for some, their insistence on identifying with the other sex is certainly a cry for parental help that more and more often fails to materialize.

Even Dr. Spock himself, the prime mover of the bad parenting we have seen everywhere since the 60s, was honest enough to admit, when he was older and wiser, that he was wrong in advising parents to refrain from disciplining children.

Yet our society proceeds like a herd of troglodytes, pursuing a failed doctrine out of political correctness. But why be surprised at this when millions are voting for politicians whose ideologies reflect a system that failed in the Soviet Union and China? Failed policy is all the rage.

Will Dr. Spack, the transgender facilitator with the sound-alike name, also some day grow up and admit to his tragic mistake? Not likely, because this would be an admission of the criminal nature of deliberately deforming young bodies at the whim of youngsters already diagnosed as disturbed. Sort of like pushing a man off a bridge when he threatens suicide.

What the world needs now is a lawsuit against such doctors who deliberately maim children under the pretext of protecting them from suicide, a pretext based on nothing but the flimsiest anecdotal evidence supplied by a doctor with a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that children’s gender is a construct of their own making.

Absent such a lawsuit, bad parenting may soon be enforced by a ravingly insane government in the name of “protecting the children.”

Click here for the news article.

Divorce and unwed motherhood cost US taxpayer $1 trillion per decade.

http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/pressrelease.pdf

“Public” school supports religion (it’s ok: this school is Islamic)

http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html

40-60% of Mass teachers flunk

http://www.theacru.org/acru/teacher_testing_in_massachusetts_biased_against_incompetence/

DVDs you need if you have kids

http://www.go2rpi.com/E-MailSpecials/IllustraMedia3-DVDSet-TRM.htm