I disagree. 

Think about it.  If you are a terrorist involved in a plot to blow up an airplane or hijack it for use as a weapon, you are not alone.  You have backers, many backers, who have dedicated their lives to reigning terror on America.  These terrorist cells are located world-wide and are funneling money in on a daily basis.  And with that sophisticated network comes funding and other resources that are virtually unlimited.

Right now, any passenger that is randomly selected to undergo a full body scan can “opt-out” and be passed off to a “police-style” pat down.  If the passenger does not want to undergo the pat down, they can choose to leave the airport, and perhaps pay a hefty fine.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out a way for terrorists to combat the TSA’s strategy.  It’s simple really.  Opt-out of the scanning and pat-down, leave unnoticed, and pass the plot off to the next terrorist until someone gets through.  The fine is a drop in the bucket with millions and possibly billions in the terrorist’s kitty.  This is a no-brainer.

Who does that deter?  Terrorist organizations with millions in the wind, or grandma with a fixed budget?

There is a bright side though.  The full body scanners are not completely useless.  They will still pick up juniors Boy Scout knife that Grandpa gave him for earning his Weblo badge that he “forgot” to tell dad he was taking. Maybe even the diabetic insulin needle that wasn’t put in the tray.  And, if we are lucky, Grandma’s plastic knitting tool tucked safely away in the side pocket of her dress. But plastic explosives and non-metallic weapons with the intent to do harm on the plane will simply walk right out the door unnoticed to be used on another day.

Bravo!  Here’s to government making good use of your tax dollars and loss of rights.

If this plan could guarantee the safety of our airways and show proof that it would save lives, I might just agree with TSA’s strategy.  However, the reality of the situation is that it doesn’t.

Do we need to continue to improve our airport security?  You betcha!  But a plan that costs millions, infringes on people’s rights, and has glaring holes that a child can see through is not the answer.

It does, however, lead to other questions that remind me of ”Pandora’s Box.”  What other forms of mass public gatherings will eventually have to endure full body scanning and/or public pat-downs?  Will the slippery slope stop at airports?  What about high rise buildings, football stadiums or Times Square?  While our government is focusing on airports with highly flawed plans that are wasting your tax-dollars, the terrorists are probably miles ahead of them focusing on areas our government is not focusing on.  That’s how 9/11 happened in the first place.  Right?

In other words, they might just be playing into the terrorists hands. 

Ask yourself this question.  Are you willing to bet your tax-dollars, privacy and other freedoms they aren’t?

_____________________________________________________

Other articles of interest:

Who is Barak Obama

Democrats are losing women

At least six GOP senators on the fence about the DREAM Act

Lawrence O’Donnell: Sarah Palin is ruining the English language

A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

“I was absolutely humiliated, I couldn’t even speak,” said Thomas D. “Tom” Sawyer, 61, of Lansing, Mich.

Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his stomach.  “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”

On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”

Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”

Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”

Bolton, who also once oversaw US non-proliferation policy, said that when Russia announced the plans to load the fuel last Friday, “the element of surprise was essentially taken away” from Israeli calculations.

Bolton noted that he doesn’t “have a clue” as to whether Israel would actually attack, but he said, “If Israel was right to destroy the Osiraq reactor, is it right to allow this one to continue? You can’t have it both ways.”

Israel took out Iraq’s Osiraq reactor during a stealth mission in 1981. It is also believed to have conducted a similar strike on an alleged Syria nuclear site in 2007.

Russia signed a contract with Iran to construct the Bushehr reactor in 1995, but has several times delayed completion. In announcing the long-overdue fuel installation, which should make Bushehr operational in September, Russia did not indicate why it was going ahead with the final stages now.


Read more

The Supreme Court ruled for the first time Monday that the Second Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership.

The court was considering a restrictive handgun law in Chicago and one of its suburbs that was similar to the District law that it ruled against in 2008. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike any other gun control measures currently in place, but it provides a legal basis for challenges across the country where gun owners think that government has been too restrictive.

“It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the conservatives on the court.

(Photos from a Patriot’s Day gun rights rally)

The victory might be more symbolic than substantive, at least initially. Few cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago and Washington.

Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation.

Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings.

“We repeat those assurances here,” Alito wrote. “Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

The decision came on the final day of the term and at a time of great change for the court. Justice John Paul Stevens sat at the mahogany bench for the last time, and will end more than 34 years on the court when his retirement becomes official Tuesday. Confirmation hearings for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama‘s choice to replace Stevens, were scheduled to begin Monday afternoon.

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 77, was with the court despite the death of her husband of 56 years, Martin D. Ginsburg, on Sunday.

Read full article here.

No longer can the democrats claim that Republicans are the “Party of No”, even though that claim was false.  Apparently, Democrats conveniently forgot to mention all the amendments that Republicans had submitted through out this process.

However, Democrats showed their true colors last night…one again.  According to Michelle:

After 10 hours, the Senate voted on 28 GOP amendments and rejected each and every one, including a Vitter amendment to spare mobile mammography units from punitive tax treatment.

Um, who’s the party of no now?

I like that…”who’s the party of no now?”  After long hours of non-stop debate, the Republicans desperately submitted more than two dozen amendments that would try to make a horrible bill, no so bad.  But of course, the Democrats would have none of that.  The power hungry group voted “NO!” on 28 of 28 amendments submitted by the GOP.  Below is a run-down of just a few.

• Republicans tried to block  MEDICARE ADVANTAGE CUTS from the Medical Device Tax.  The Democrats said “NO!”
• Republicans tried to protect WOUNDED SOILDERS from the Medical Device Tax.  The Democrats said “NO!”
• Republicans tried to protect CANCER PATIENTS from the Medical Device Tax.  The Democrats said “NO!”
• Republicans tried to protect PEDIATRICS and the DISABLED from the Medical Device Tax.  The Democrats said “NO!”
• Republicans tried to REDUCE the STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATE.  The Democrats said “NO!”
• Republicans tried to bar taxapyers from having to pay for Erectile Dysfunctional drugs for SEX OFFENDERS.  The Democrats said “NO!”

Do you see a pattern here?  If not, let me sum it up for you.  The Democrats said “NO” to the protection of Senior Citizens, Wounded Soldiers, Cancer Patients, Pediatrics (children), and the disabled while supporting the rise in cost to students and providing sexual performance drugs to sex offenders.

Who’s side are the Democrats on?

In case you haven’t heard, but the main slogan for GOP candidates for the next 7+ months will be based on repealing Obamacare.  The one I like the best so far is “Repeal and Replace”, but right beside it should be the tag line “Hey Democrats!  Who’s the party of “NO” now!”

Michelle babe, you rock!  I hope you don’t mind that I used that as my headline! 

___________________________________________________________

Please join our Facebook page

Other articles of interest:

Condemning Threats, Condemning Assumptions

Health Taxes — For a Slimmer, Trimmer Wallet

DEMOCRATS ASKING FOR DEFEAT

Why a Black Agenda is Wrong Part II

Photo provided by the AP

Yes, Obama campaigned on a promise of “Hope and Change”, but did he deliver?  According to the 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact.com, not quite.  In his first year in office, President Obama has broken 14 campaign promises.  To be fair, Politifact.com reports that he has kept 91 and compromised 33.  But in a country that demands accountability and transparency (pay attention to #14), it’s the broken ones that seem to matter most, especially if you blame so many problems on your predecessor.  As reported by Politifact.com (follow the link for detailed explanations), the broken promises keep coming:

1. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
2. End no-bid contracts above $25,000
3. Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives
4. Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
5. Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
6. Double funding for afterschool programs
7. Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws
8. Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage
9. Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit
10. Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels
11. Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs
12. Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
13. Recognize the Armenian genocide
14. Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN*

*Interesting note, as reported by the Associated Press:

C-SPAN asked to televise the negotiations between the House and Senate versions; the White House insists it hasn’t seen the request.

I didn’t know that request had to be formally given to the White House for a president to keep his promise!

Ouch…that’s gotta hurt!

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Other articles of interest:

Urgent Appeal RE:  Massachusetts and Other States

Hillary Goes Weak-Kneed on Iran Sanctions

Who are these “economist” who keep expecting the situation to get better, when we, the American people, know that is not true?  It is all around us!  What are they basing their expert predictions on?  The stock market?  That’s nothing more than a good indicator that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer!

It’s a form of “legal robbery”, if you ask me.

It certainly isn’t middle-America or the poor that is making the stock market go up, we simply don’t have the money to invest.  We are too busy saving our pennies, looking through the couch and the seat of our cars just to scrape up enough change to by Roman Noodles.

But back to unemployment.  Now, factor in the hundreds of thousands of Americans who can no longer claim unemployment benefits because their eligibility has run out.  The White House seems to sweep this little issue under the rug.

Until people start going back to work, I (like most Americans) expect the situation to continue to decline.  It’s just common sense, something these so-called “economist” are severely lacking!

From Fox News:

WASHINGTON — The number of newly laid-off workers requesting unemployment benefits rose more than expected last week as jobs remain scarce amid a sluggish economic recovery.

The Labor Department said Thursday new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 444,000. Wall Street economists polled by Thomson Reuters expected an increase of only 3,000.

The rise was partly a result of large seasonal layoffs in the retail, manufacturing and construction industries, a Labor Department analyst said. The second week of January usually sees the largest increase in claims, unadjusted for seasonal trends, during the year, the analyst said.

Still, the increase didn’t disrupt the longer-term downward trend in claims. The four-week average dropped to 440,750, its 19th straight drop and lowest level since August 2008.

Initial claims are considered a gauge of the pace of layoffs and an indication of companies’ willingness to hire new workers.

Claims have dropped steadily since last fall, as companies cut fewer jobs, raising hopes that hiring may increase soon. Initial claims have dropped by nearly 90,000, or 17 percent, since late October. Two weeks ago, new claims dropped to their lowest level since July 2008.

Despite the recent drop, the economy is not yet consistently generating net increases in jobs. The Labor Department said last week that employers cut 85,000 jobs in December, after adding only 4,000 in November. November’s increase was the first in nearly two years. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 10 percent.

Many economists say the four week average of claims will need to fall to below 425,000 to signal that the economy is close to generating net job gains.

Meanwhile, the number of people continuing to claim benefits dropped sharply to 4.6 million from 4.8 million the previous week. The continuing claims data lags initial claims by a week.

But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits customarily provided by states, and are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

More than 5.3 million people were receiving extended benefits in the week ended Dec. 26, the latest data available. That’s a drop of about 135,000 from the previous week.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

President Obama’s meeting with his top national security advisers does nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our nation’s security. That’s what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September 11, 2001. This is a war on terror not an “overseas contingency operation.” Acts of terrorism are just that, not “man caused disasters.” The system did not work. Abdulmutallab was a child of privilege radicalized and trained by organized jihadists, not an “isolated extremist” who traveled to a land of “crushing poverty.” He is an enemy of the United States, not just another criminal defendant.

It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a common criminal. Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda rights. President Obama’s advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing to agree to a plea bargain – pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a suicide bomber. John Brennan, the President’s top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely claimed “there are no downsides or upsides” to treating terrorists as enemy combatants. That is absurd. There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals: terrorists invoke their “right” to remain silent and stop talking. Terrorists don’t tell us where they were trained, what they were trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with. Giving foreign-born, foreign-trained terrorists the right to remain silent does nothing to keep Americans safe from terrorist threats. It only gives our enemies access to courtrooms where they can publicly grandstand, and to defense attorneys who can manipulate the legal process to gain access to classified information.

President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on America. Now he must back off his reckless plan to close Guantanamo, begin treating terrorists as wartime enemies not suspects alleged to have committed crimes, and recognize that the real nature of the terrorist threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor.

- Sarah Palin

From Rep. John Boehner:

Fixed it is not.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest health care “manager’s amendment” would STILL levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans under the Democrats’ health care plan.  Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) and the last version of Senator Reid’s 2,074-page bill, this latest 383-page amendment levies an abortion premium and does not fix the problem of government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions.

Under Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange.  Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41).  Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services.  The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22).

In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions.  The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.  Under the Reid “manager’s amendment” the new health care plan that will mirror the federal employees’ plan and be managed by the Office of Personnel Management will NOT be subject to the Smith Amendment.

Leader Reid’s latest health care proposal is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  In a statement released by National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said, “The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.”  The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.  The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats.  The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange.  The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree.  House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

UPDATE: Here is a detailed critique of the new Reid abortion language from the National Right to Life committee.

What did Mr. Danin come away with?  Well, read for yourself… but my jaw is still on the floor!!!

From the Huffington Post, by Stephen H. Dinan:

Over Thanksgiving, I was hiking with my brother-in-law when he commented that he only knew two kinds of people: those who loved Sarah Palin and those who hated her. Nobody was in the gray zone. While I didn’t consider myself a “hater,” I also knew that she had triggered intense reactions in me when she joined the Republican ticket. After Obama’s victory, the fear of her becoming President subsided along with the negative charge, but I had to confess to a lingering prejudice beneath the surface.

One week later, I bought her autobiography, Going Rogue. Why? To dissolve my own prejudice and to better understand how we as a culture can go beyond the extreme political polarizations that have so paralyzed our country. What I know from years of psychological and spiritual explorations is that whenever we judge or fight something in the world, there is an aspect of ourselves that we are battling against. In creating walls of separation in the world, we reinforce them within ourselves, which is ultimately to our detriment.

I truly believe that everyone has their divine role to play in the world, even those with very different politics, beliefs, and values. While I have held that truth, though, I still had a visceral reaction to Palin – a sure signal that some work remains.

So reading Going Roguewas something of a test for myself – could I find the place of appreciation, respect, and even love for Sarah Palin?

What I found is that it wasn’t really that hard, actually, simply by taking the time to meet her on her own turf rather than through sounds bites, spin, and polarized media battles. Reading someone’s personal memoir is an intimate journey into their inner sanctum, and I developed a real appreciation for Sarah in reading the book. Aspects of her that seemed coarse, simplistic, or combative during the campaign were revealed to be a product of frontier values and growing up in a culture that is faced with subzero temperatures and constant tests of survival.

Her journey from high school basketball captain to Governor revealed itself as an impressive triumph of hard work, resiliency, and willingness to challenge the status quo. Many of the most caricatured and vilified aspects of her history turned out to be lopsided depictions and sometimes gross misrepresentations.

For example, while her belief in God is deep and sincere, she wasn’t fanatical about it or dismissive of others. I found a real appreciation for the spiritual depths she went to when first faced with having a Down’s syndrome child. Her ultimate celebration of the beauty and perfection of that child, a child that 90% of people would have aborted according to statistics, was profoundly moving and it led hundreds of thousands of special needs children to feel championed through her campaign.

On other fronts, her pro-development views on energy and oil did not exclude a deep love for the environment and even an appreciation for alternative energy and reducing our carbon footprint. She wrote in moving terms about her husband’s indigenous ancestry and connection with the natural world, as well as the devastation wrought by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite being pro-business she was heroically willing to face down the oil industry when it was corrupting the government of Alaska, a kind of bravery we need more of on both sides of the aisle.

Perhaps the most moving aspect of the book is the way in which she never waivers in her family commitments throughout the political journey. She passes up an opportunity to contest a Senate seat in order to manage her son’s hockey team. She breast feeds in front of a taken-aback lawmaker. Team Palin is a part of every campaign and a constant presence in her official roles. Her family is at the center of her life in a way that feels whole and balanced, which is both impressive and commendable as we all seek to balance competing demands on our time.

In reading the book, I started to see a lot more of myself and my upbringing in Sarah. I too had grown up in a frozen land – Northern Minnesota – a place of unpretentious, middle-class, hardworking people who believe in personal responsibility and straight-talking integrity. We, too, had our sled dog races, subzero temperatures and a spirit of camaraderie to make it through. I began to see her political values as a natural extension of those tough-minded virtues, enabling her to take on daunting tasks and succeed at each level of life.

My developing appreciation of her formative years in the book led to a different view of the pressure cooker of national, presidential politics – I felt far more compassion for the ugly way in which she was attacked by the press, dismissed by the opposition, and muzzled by patronizing campaign bosses. She faced strong prejudices from people like myself who were scared that her more black-or-white, provincial-seeming perspective would someday be in the Oval Office. We were also worried by her folksy appeal and ability to attack Obama aggressively while appearing quite charming. The result of that reaction was a barrage of distorted stories, inflated fears, and downright misrepresentations, some of which were quite damaging to her family. After reading in her own words what she went through, I felt more compassion for her and dismay about the meat grinder that we’ve created for political leaders – an occupation for which we truly need our best and brightest.

Reading Going Rogue makes me understand that Sarah is not the ruthlessly ambitious and cutthroat caricature we feared; she is a woman who has befriended Democrats personally and professionally, shown real leadership in fighting corruption, and taken a more nuanced position on several issues in which she seemed far more polarizing. She seems quite sincere in her desire to serve in whatever way the universe calls for that service.

All that said, I still bristled when she launches in the final part of the book into a diatribe about what our country needs, which is strongly colored with right-wing platitudes and a self-righteous air as well as the tendency to portray liberals as the enemy rather than fellow allies in evolving our country. I would love to see more thoughtful reflections on positions and values, a deeper understanding of history, and less of the combative edge, all of which would make her a more unifying leader (and likely lead to fewer arrows back at her and her family). But that may not be her role. She is more of a super-charged Mom of the great white North, flashing into action to fight for what she sees as right, inspiring the Everyman and Everywoman to take personal responsibility for their lives and their country. She has the same qualities as a mother bear, with a fierce love that is eager to protect her cubs (or her country). If she’s on your side, that can be exhilarating. But it can also reinforce the kind of partisan warfare that the book ultimately demonstrates is so destructive. My prayer is that this admirable woman can more fully embrace the idea that we all are on the same team here on planet earth. It’s an all hand-on-deck moment for humanity and both conservatives and progressive values and people are needed.

Most of all, I come way from the book seeing Sarah as a woman who loves her family deeply, seeks to live a life of integrity, and wants America to be strong, successful and vibrant. While I may disagree with some of her policies and perspectives, I can better respect both her sincere patriotic intent as well as her willingness to take on hard fights in the service of democracy, in addition to her championing of the everyday people who often feel marginalized in our political process. I still would not vote for her for President, but I do respect her more as a person and as a leader of an important base of Americans.

I come away from reading Going Rogue feeling that it would be a useful act of citizenship for all those who feel prejudice towards her to read her book and meet her on her own turf in order to heal the lingering prejudices. I feel more balanced for having done so. I would also urge conservatives who hate or fear Obama to read his autobiography to better understand the man behind the political leader and thus heal their own biases.

The way I see it, healing the rift between Democrats and Republicans helps to heal the rift in our own hearts. The truth is that each party tends to champion one side of America’s core values and we need both to operate in complementary and respectful ways for us to address the challenges we face. As each of us heals that prejudice in ourselves, we truly become part of the solution.

Join the discussion on the new PIN Discussion Forum.  Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.