 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought August 20, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
The problem with the Bush administration is that not enough of its officials have read the U.S. Constitution. Take, for example, Section 2 of Article 2. When dealing with foreign nations, it says that the President “shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….” So, why is President Bush and his administration seeking to establish a North American Union that would, in effect, abolish the borders between Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America? Moreover, it would involve our government in so many common regulatory mandates with these two nations as to render the sovereignty of the United States a memory of what national self-governance is supposed to be. The name of this effort is called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), and guess what? It has not been submitted to the Senate for its oversight or concurrence because, by some magic of governmental definition, it is not a treaty. Instead, its administration is buried in the bowels of the Commerce Department. It does have, however, the blessing of the political and corporate elites of all three nations. A visit to the SPP Internet website says it “was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.” It is an attack on American sovereignty. In the smoothest and most soothing writing you will find anywhere, the website spells out the wonders of SPP. They include the North American Competitiveness Council, the North American Energy Security Initiative, the North American Emergency Management plan, and plans for “smart, secure borders.” And right now there are “working groups” whose purpose is to “improve productivity, reduce the costs of trade, and enhance the quality of life.” And if you like snake oil, permit SPP to sell it to you not by the barrel, but by the boxcar and by the tanker. The SPP didn’t start out as an idea the presidents of the three nations started kicking around on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas, but it became the official policy of the United States at a special summit convened by President Bush and joined by then Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. Like so many really bad foreign policy concepts, SPP owes its origins to the Council on Foreign Relations — in this case, CFR’s Task Force on North America. Its report“Building a North American Community” envisions the elimination of U.S. borders in just five years. Like termites eating away at the sovereignty of the United States of America, this grandiose scheme is a major threat to American security and prosperity. The Marxist majordomo of this task force is Professor Robert Pastor who told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada but at the borders of North America as a whole.” Oh, yeah???? This surely explains why Mexico is doing such a great job of stopping the drug smugglers or the one million Mexicans who each year consider the U.S. border a mere fiction in their pursuit of jobs President Bush keeps telling us Americans won’t take. This is pure bunk and dangerous bunk at that. I have many Canadian friends, but it seems to me Canada took too long to discover it had some fanatical Muslims in its midst who were plotting terrible things. Frankly, I want us to cooperate against a common enemy, but I do not want to place the responsibility for America’s security in anyone’s hands but our own. A North American Union promises not only security, says SPP, but prosperity too. Without SPP, however, the three nations already do more than $800 billion in trilateral trade. Surely the U.S. needs Mexico’s help to improve our economy? As the economist, Robert J. Samuelson, noted in a June column, “The subtext for the United States immigration debate is Mexico. Why doesn’t its economy grow faster, creating more jobs and higher living standards?” The answer to that has something to do with the endemic corruption that infests all levels of Mexico’s governmental and business sectors. Something is very wrong when Mexico’s economy must literally depend on the billions its illegal aliens send home from the U.S. In 2002, the then-Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castanega explained to the local press that destroying the border involved “the metaphor of Gulliver, of ensnarling the giant. Tying it up, with nails, with thread, with 20,000 nets that bog it down: these nets being norms, principles, resolutions, agreements, and bilateral, regional and international covenants.” Bush43 is carrying out Bush41’s daft and dangerous “new world order,” and his indifference to America’s illegal immigration crisis is symptomatic of the SPP objectives. On June 15, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba, and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier joined North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council. The objective is the promotion of “regional competitiveness in the global community.” As if the floundering economies of the member nations of the European Union were not warning enough, it is proposed that the United States enter into a similar union. A lot of corporations with global interests like this idea. Among those sponsoring the North American Union are FedEx Corporation, Mittal Steel USA, General Motors Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Campbell’s Soup Company, Gillette Inc., Merck & Company, and Wal-Mart Stores. Since the United States is already a signatory to NAFTA and CAFTA, why is SPP necessary? Just how many treaties, agreements and protocols are necessary to promote trade and economic growth? Just how many nets and norms, traps and snares, will ultimately undermine U.S. prosperity, drive down the wages of America’s middle class, and improve the ability of the Mexican drug cartels to deliver their goods? Like termites eating away at the sovereignty of the United States of America, this grandiose scheme, hatched in some darkened cavern of the Council on Foreign Affairs, is a major threat to American security and prosperity. It was been introduced by fiat, by executive action, by a “summit” of the three nation’s leaders, and the time is long overdue for the Senate to demand to exercise its Constitutional responsibility and right to determine if it wishes to give its consent to yet another “entangling alliance.” |
|||||
In 1919 William Butler Yeats, after having just watched WW I with all of its destruction, wrote a very interesting poem called "The Second Coming." I have included it below for your perusal. Some view the poem to be somewhat heretical. I do not share that view. I view it as a statement of fact. All civilizations go through cycles of self-destruction and rebirth. This is something that is borne witness to by centuries of history. That didn’t used to be such a bad thing for the planet because each little region had its own dark ages while another concept of society got its time in the sun. The first two lines refer to societies forgetting the reasons they have their customs and origins as well as forgetting responsibility. Each generation passes through this stage and then grows up. We live in a society now where it is very difficult to raise children properly. The mere punishing of a child for anything can cause a parent some serious problems. That is here, though. In the Mid-East there is a culture of death that is continuing to grow unchecked. They make the anarchists of our country look like a bunch of saints. The next four lines deal with the product of what I was discussing above. The last two lines in the stanza describe what we become as we fall apart. In the second stanza, he refers to Spiritus Mundi. This is a Latin term that refers to the spirit of the world. Now that we are all one big happy family, what is the spirit of the world? Everybody buys everything from someone who hates them, building a bigger resentment. The Chinese make our happy little products in Laogis and in other various miserable situations. In the Mid-East we buy the oil we need to fuel our economy. They hate us too and the hatred continues to build, fueled by China and Russia and some of their minions of ignorance. Venezuela has a leader that loves Castro and hates us. China’s leaders took a spin through South America about the time Clinton was leaving office and sealed the deals that will be affecting us for decades. In other words, the spirit of the world is pretty dark. He then continues to echo his original statement about the center not being able to hold against the ends by talking about the Sphinx with a blank gaze marching towards Bethlehem. He also speaks of it being awakened by twenty centuries of the cradle rocking as it brought forth those who will commit this act upon a united and thoughtless world. The idea that liberals have pushed for years of interconnectivity has never been one of my favorites for one very simple reason. The more connected we are, the more likely we are to suffer the same fate as one of those "partners" as they fall into their own dark ages. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so how is it that we’ve managed to attach our fate to the fate of so many third world nations? It’s because we just don’t get it. We are now poised to be dragged kicking and screaming into the shadows by thoughtless and cowardly people. As the hordes of raging radicals worldwide continue their dance of death the rest of us toil to prepare while the others go to the mall. That’s life, though. We pays our money and we takes our chances. The choices we make have far reaching consequences and seldom do we see where things are really heading. Those who hold out their hope to the politicians to fix our problems are mostly ignorant of how the real world works so we in our ignorance always pick the wrong ones. It’s all about personal responsibility. There was a lesson given to each of us in the US last year. That lesson was Hurricane Katrina. How did the people do during that lesson? Yes. It’s that simple and that obvious. To those who want to appease the barbarians of the east: You lack conviction, and your cowardice gets painted onto the rest of us by the media fools. Quit wearing your ignorance like a badge of honor!
R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
A guy I know told me the other day he doesn’t plan on seeing Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center. When I asked him why, he told me he doesn’t feel the need to “relive” September 11th. I thought this remark was somewhat unusual. World Trade Center is about two Port Authority police officers who were rescued after spending 24 hours pinned beneath the rubble. Most of us — including me and the guy I was talking to — watched 9/11 happen from the comfort of our offices, classrooms, or homes. I’m not saying you had to be at Ground Zero for 9/11 to affect you. I’m not saying you had to lose someone. I’m not even saying you had to have worried whether someone you loved would be lost. All of us were affected by 9/11 — even those of us who weren’t directly affected by it. But if you didn’t live through it in the sense that two guys pinned beneath the rubble lived through it, then how could World Trade Center possibly constitute re-living it? Your whole 9/11 experience revolved around watching television. Wouldn’t the only way to relive your 9/11 be a movie about people watching Fox News? Maybe I’m just nitpicking here. Obviously, when people say they don’t want to relive September 11th, they’re talking about how they felt that day — not just what they saw. This makes me wonder if watching it unfold on live TV has warped our perspective, though. Generally speaking, not wanting to “relive” 9/11 sounds more like an excuse not to see World Trade Center than a reason not to see it. In fact, a lot of the reasons people won’t be seeing this movie sound more like excuses than reasons. Like the idea that it’s “too soon.” Or the idea that Hollywood shouldn’t be telling stories about such an important part of our history. How could it ever be too soon to tell stories about something so significant? Mankind has been telling stories about important events for thousands of years. Most of that time, we weren’t even worried about storytellers taking artistic liberties. Just take the Gospels, which differ on small points such as Jesus’s last words and whether he carried his own cross. Do these differences hurt the story? Of course not. The lesson prevails through each variation. The same should be true about September 11th. There are so many perspectives from which this story could be told. From inside the Towers. From inside the Pentagon. Even from inside the classroom where George Bush was reading to those kids. When someone tells me they don’t want to relive 9/11, it sounds to me like the only perspective they want to consider is their own. They don’t want to see the debris clouds from inside the WTC concourse — as seen in World Trade Center. They don’t want to see the struggle aboard the airplanes — as depicted by United 93. All they want to see is what they remember seeing while they watched 9/11 safely from home five years ago. The first thing a lot of us said that morning was, “God, this looks just like a movie.” And it’s that very sense of detachment — the comfort that came with being able to turn off our televisions — that some people don’t want to give up. As far as I’m concerned, this is the wrong reason not to see World Trade Center. Maybe it would be the right reason if you were directly affected by September 11th. That’s different. But the rest of us experienced those attacks secondhand. We never had to identify with the heroes; we just had to call them “heroes,” feel bad for them, and send their families money. World Trade Center will change that. It’ll let you get to the real human heart of this story once and for all. Make no mistake: This movie will make you emotional. You’ll have flashbacks the next day. For lack of better expression, it’s the next best thing to having been at Ground Zero. All I’m saying is, don’t think of this as a deterrent. After all, you probably weren’t at Ground Zero to begin with. The two officers this movie focuses on were. You don’t owe it to those guys — or to anyone, really — to see Oliver Stone’s new picture. But before you tell me you don’t want to relive September 11th, live through it again — for the first time — through the eyes of two men who survived. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. Lately it has been in vogue for everyone in Washington to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of their communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way. Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American taxpayer subsidies. Thanks to the largesse of Congress and the President, China enjoys subsidized trade and the flow of US tax dollars into Beijing's coffers. I offered an amendment before the House of Representatives last month that would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only a minority of Democrats or Republicans supported my measure. Apparently, many members of Congress are happy to bash China, but don’t mind lending her U.S. taxpayer money at sweetheart interest rates. Some of your money went to fund a nuclear power plant in Shanghai owned by the China National Nuclear Corporation, a state-run company. Many US-based multinational corporations benefit directly from Export-Import Bank subsidies to China, including Boeing, Westinghouse, and McDonnell Douglas. So it’s not hard to understand that business trumps the feelgood rhetoric condemning China. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith. In reality, there is very little the federal government can do about conditions in China. Under our Constitution, the federal government simply does not have the authority to point a gun at Chinese leaders and force them to respect the principles of liberty. It just doesn't work that way. I believe that by
engaging the Chinese people, opening personal dialogue, and seeking
to change their hearts and minds, we soon will see that regime collapse.
The laws of economics dictate that a communist system cannot stand for
long. But in the same way, I firmly believe there is a higher law which
dictates that people exposed to the principles of liberty will not for
long allow themselves to remain shackled to an oppressive government.
Economic freedom, i.e. capitalism, now has a strong foothold in China.
The Chinese people may soon demand political,
religious, and personal freedom as well. But in the meantime let’s
stop sending tax dollars to support a government we claim to despise. Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. Lately it has been in vogue for everyone in Washington to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of their communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way. Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American taxpayer subsidies. Thanks to the largesse of Congress and the President, China enjoys subsidized trade and the flow of US tax dollars into Beijing's coffers. I offered an amendment before the House of Representatives last month that would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only a minority of Democrats or Republicans supported my measure. Apparently, many members of Congress are happy to bash China, but don’t mind lending her U.S. taxpayer money at sweetheart interest rates. Some of your money went to fund a nuclear power plant in Shanghai owned by the China National Nuclear Corporation, a state-run company. Many US-based multinational corporations benefit directly from Export-Import Bank subsidies to China, including Boeing, Westinghouse, and McDonnell Douglas. So it’s not hard to understand that business trumps the feelgood rhetoric condemning China. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith. In reality, there is very little the federal government can do about conditions in China. Under our Constitution, the federal government simply does not have the authority to point a gun at Chinese leaders and force them to respect the principles of liberty. It just doesn't work that way. I believe that by
engaging the Chinese people, opening personal dialogue, and seeking
to change their hearts and minds, we soon will see that regime collapse.
The laws of economics dictate that a communist system cannot stand for
long. But in the same way, I firmly believe there is a higher law which
dictates that people exposed to the principles of liberty will not for
long allow themselves to remain shackled to an oppressive government.
Economic freedom, i.e. capitalism, now has a strong foothold in China.
The Chinese people may soon demand political,
religious, and personal freedom as well. But in the meantime let’s
stop sending tax dollars to support a government we claim to despise. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
On any given day, copious amounts of anti Wal-Mart sentiment circulate in the media. Out of the spotlight, though, is past criticism of the Walton families’ support of school choice. Union detractors have settled on a different strategy and are achieving a certain degree of success influencing public opinion to observe the company in a negative light. Critics would have the populace believe that Wal-Mart depresses wages and eliminates jobs. Apparently one such study undertaken “by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Urban Economic Development concluded that the proposed West-Side Chicago store likely would yield a net decrease of about 65 jobs after that Wal-Mart opens, as other retailers in the same shopping area lose business.” 1 Charges levied at the super centers argue that competition is forced to cut jobs and benefits of unionized workers; producers of American goods move overseas; and competitors are importing more goods. Wal-Mart is vilified for taking advantage of state and local government subsidies of its stores and distribution centers to a tune of $1 billion dollars. The most egregious accusation is that taxpayers and businesses indirectly pay the costs of Wal-Mart’s underinsured employees. It is alleged it is because of Wal-Mart, that their employees rely on healthcare subsidies, food stamps, housing vouchers, etc., costing the federal taxpayer an average of $2,103 per worker. In Maryland, the Democrat-led General Assembly voted for a bill (that legislatures in more than 30 states are considering replicating) which would require Wal-Mart spend more on employee health care. This piece of legislation drew strong backing from labor unions. Trying to change the course of Wal-Mart corporate policy in Chicago, “The UFCW, Commercial Workers Union and other Wal-Mart critics,” 2 tried to force the company to sign a Community Benefits Agreement forcing the company to allow its employees to form a union and permanently forgo tax breaks or other government subsidies in Chicago. Wal-Mart refused to comply with Chicago’s demands and instead planned a January 27, 2006 opening of a store in Evergreen Park, just outside the city limits. Interestingly enough, over 25,000 applications have been submitted for employment and the number is rising. Considering all the hype about full time employees making an average wage of $10.99 an hour, compared to union wages at partly-unionized Costco (upwards of $14.00 an hour), or heavily unionized grocery stores, this represents quite a turn-out. Although there will only be 325 positions created, the company will be donating an initial $35,000 to local charities as well as distributing grant dollars throughout the year (upwards of 5 million dollars throughout the state) to help surrounding neighborhoods. And there’s more: The company paid Illinois over $61.2 million in taxes for the year 2004. If a business is required to sign such documents as a Community Benefits Agreement — which would require giving up tax breaks and paying employees more money because they’re unionized — then of course higher costs are going to be passed onto the consumer. Another consideration needing to be taken into account is that business friendly states with lower costs of doing business have, on average, greater job growth than those with high costs. When companies become financially overextended from the added costs of health benefits and pensions for retirees, ultimately they end up needing to be bailed out with public money because the cost of not being able to supply jobs to those dependent on them is perceived as much worse. Think about it, how many private companies have had to be bailed out in the last 50 years? Chrysler, United Airlines, Amtrak… What do these have in common? They are all unionized. With all that Wal-Mart gives back to the community, the question that should be asked is: Who benefits from unions, and who does more for the community, the unions or Wal-Mart? Unions certainly do not benefit families whose children are forced to attend public schools where AYP goals are not being met and students are receiving an inferior education. In such cases, teachers are paying (sometimes mandatory) union dues which are spent on special interests, not in the local community. At its 2005 Los Angeles Convention, the NEA passed a series of resolutions (which can be found on the August 2005 Education Reporter). As one can see in the following (italicized) excerpts, the union is not meeting the needs of individual communities; especially impoverished neighborhoods. Funds must be provided for programs to alleviate race, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination and to eliminate portrayal of race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identification stereotypes in the public schools. Plans, activities, and programs must increase respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity toward individuals and groups in a diverse society composed of such groups as American Indians/Alaska natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered persons, and people with disabilities. Whether teachers agree with the NEA agenda, dues are used to further it. Additionally, The National Education Association believes that, regardless of the immigration status of students or their parents, every student has the right to a free public education. The Association further believes that students who have resided in the United States for at least five years at the time of high school graduation should be granted amnesty by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, granted legal residency status, and allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship. Illegal aliens draw from the system without replenishing the system. What costs more, those attending public schools on public tax dollars or those seeking health care on public tax dollars? In both cases, tax dollars are paying for these services. The Association recognizes that the public school must assume an increasingly important role in providing the [Sex Education] instruction. Teachers and health professionals must be qualified to teach in this area and must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits. The Association also believes that to facilitate the realization of human potential, it is the right of every individual to live in an environment of freely available information and knowledge about sexuality and encourages affiliates and members to support appropriately established sex education programs. Such programs should include information on sexual abstinence, birth control and family planning, diversity of culture, diversity of sexual orientation and gender identification, parenting skills, prenatal care, sexually transmitted diseases, incest, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, [and] homophobia. One would be hard pressed to pinpoint the exact moment that the basics of instruction grew to include such things. Further, one has to wonder if the framers would have found the inclusion of Sex Education more important than Civic Education; something they believed necessary to maintain a Democracy and which is not covered by any of the union’s resolutions; though global disposition is considered essential. Unions don’t like choice and they don’t want any competition. The National Education Association believes that voucher plans, tuition tax credits, or other funding arrangements that use tax monies to subsidize pre-K through 12 private school education can undermine public education; reduce the support needed to fund public education adequately; cause racial, economic, and social segregation of students; and threaten the constitutional separation of church and state. The Association opposes voucher plans, tuition tax credits, or other such funding arrangements that pay for students to attend sectarian schools. The Association believes that federally or state mandated parental option or choice plans compromise free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student. Therefore, the Association opposes such federally or state-mandated choice or parental option plans. Rather than allow families the opportunity to seek institutions of learning that are most suited to a child’s individual needs, students are forced to attend failing public schools on the public dollars which emanate from taxes collected from their parents. That is no worse than telling families where they can buy their groceries. Schools should not deviate from the proscribed union formula. The National Education Association believes that standardized tests should be used only to improve the quality of education and instruction for students. The Association opposes the use of standardized tests when used as the criterion for the reduction or withholding of any educational funding, results are used to compare students, teachers, programs, schools, communities, and states or when students with special needs of Limited English Proficiency are required to take the same tests as regular education students without modifications and/or accommodations. The net effect of such regulation would hinder parents’ ability to monitor their school districts performance in relation to other districts in and outside their state of residence. NCLB has thrown some light on performance variables in relation to minimum standards determined by the individual states. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently started “ranking school systems' performance as part of efforts to raise a work force that could better compete in the global economy”3. Teacher knowledge of more demanding subjects is not monetarily rewarded, nor are teachers who consistently ensure one year academic growth in students-regardless of their starting point. The National Education Association believes that competency testing must not be used as a condition of employment, license retention, evaluation, placement, ranking, or promotion of licensed teachers. If a teacher need not prove minimum competency in his or her subject area, a parent has no way of determining whether his/her child is receiving adequate instruction. Schools should consider following the example of Belgium, where teachers in secondary schools generally hold a doctorate in their area of expertise. However, the NEA supposes to know what is best for our country and our schools and have not been held accountable for any missteps. If permitted to further advance their resolutions, parents of limited financial resources will never be granted the option of pulling their children out of poor institutions for learning. Undue NEA influence has guaranteed that teachers will all be treated equally regardless of ability and ensured that all schools will be perceived as providing a minimal standard of education. This has resulted in obvious disparities among teachers and schools. In the event a parent concludes he/she could do a better job at home, the NEA wants to employ roadblocks to make certain well meaning parents jump through hoops in order to provide an education in the home. The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state requirements. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used. The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools. The NEA discourages practical debate or differing perspectives. The National Education Association condemns the philosophy and practices of extremist groups and urges active opposition to all such movements that are inimical to the ideals of the Association.4 Returning to the
original question, who benefits from unions and who does more for the
community, the unions or Wal-Mart? I don’t know of any unions
that give back to the community the way Wal-Mart does. Nevertheless,
unions would like to prevent consumers from benefiting from non unionized
corporations. “The International Brotherhood of Teamsters union,
which has 1.4 million members and is one of the sponsors of Wal-Mart
Watch,” 5 only just “launched FedEx Watch.” 6 But
that is a story for another day. New Evergreen Wal-Mart Opens This Friday, Earlier Than Planned 1 The Wal-Mart Effect: The Hows and Whys of Beating the Bentonville Behemoth 2 WAL-MART Looking to Dominate 3 U.S. business group will rank school performance 4 Some NEA Resolutions Passed at the 2005 Convention in Los Angeles 5, 6 Wal-Mart Union Foe 'Absolutely, Positively' Takes on FedEx Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Friday, August 18, 2006 6:50 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
