but during this period czechoslovakia was part of the soviet bloc. what's it priced at? it's $200. walberg: a group of eastern european communist countries aligned with the soviet union. is it okay if i zip the back with my fingernail, just to look? walberg: artists were discouraged from having an individual point of view in favor of a more uniform style, leaving much of one country's art indiscernible from another. and this is the simple scenes that you would see. walberg: these paintings are by soviet artists of the same era. like many of their counterparts from soviet bloc countries artists who declined to paint government-sanctioned scenes with proletariat workers, chose instead to paint simple impressionistic landscapes that were considered safe subjects. kevin: do you have any clue who the artist is? it looks like "incazak," but that don't mean anything. any time you can zip open the back of a painting it's most likely going to lead to more information for you to be able to determine whether you want to purchase an item like that or not. and when i opened that one up and i saw

they were linked to china's communist revolution which happened one year before that part of the soviet bloc in other words the us cold war narrative was the world was going communist there was a series of revolutions or national liberation victories and their career was at the epicenter of this global struggle. and i mean what threat if any do they actually serve this country. well actually north korea doesn't pose any threat whatsoever north korea is a member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty it's wanted for the past sixty years to have a peace treaty that ends the korean war the u.s. won't sign a peace treaty instead the u.s. imposes economic sanctions on a small country. they want to have peace with the united states now in the last months of the clinton administration in one thousand nine hundred ninety two thousand clinton open the door to north korea madeline albright who was then secretary of state went to pyongyang it looked like there would be a thaw perhaps a thaw between north and south korea as you mentioned in your opening that's a country that's been divided a country tha

they were linked to china's communist revolution which happened one year before that part of the soviet bloc in other words the us cold war narrative was the world was going communist there was a series of revolutions or national liberation victories and that korea was at the epicenter of this global struggle. and i mean what threat if any do they actually serve this country well actually north korea doesn't pose any threat whatsoever north korea is a member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty it's wanted for the past sixty years to have a peace treaty that ends the korean war the u.s. won't sign a peace treaty instead the u.s. imposes economic sanctions on a small country. they want to have peace with the united states now in the last months of the clinton administration in one thousand nine hundred ninety two thousand clinton open the door to north korea madeline albright who was then secretary of state went to pyongyang it looked like there would be a thaw perhaps a thaw between north and south korea as you mentioned in your opening that's a country that's been divided a country that h

he could not deal with russia in the issues of what was going on in the soviet bloc until the fix the economy of the added states of america which, by the way, was growing at 7 percent, i think, at this time in his second administration. unless we fix the economy your first we're not going to be able to do anything. neil: well, your father has recognized that -- maybe he went too far, accepted and solid revenue hikes. you argue that your dad police will lead to much, but in other words he will then yielding more in the end when said that taxes were lower. he was right about that, but is this president going to reverse anything you have seen from his first term? is this president going to do anything differently like your father did to try to make rapprochements to the middle? >> no, he is not because ronald reagan understood you had to go to the metal, as bill clinton understood you had to go to the middle. neil: you don't see anything out of barack, the show's any of that? >> did you hear anything like that tonight? no. what he is going to do is write a ship that he believes has alwa

because he took over our country that was in trouble, and% unemployment, trouble with the soviet -- or the communist bloc. host: were your parents republicans? caller: not at first, but later. host: a conservatives in washington ramesh ponnuru writes -- so that is ramesh ponnuru on walt gray in this morning in the new york times op-ed pages. we're getting your take on your favorite presidents. we will continue to do that. first, "usa today" has the headline that many of the papers have. dennis mcdonald was on meet the press, president obama's new chief of staff, talking about the bill. [video clip] >> this report, all it says to me is we are doing exactly what we said we would do, which is what we prepared in the event the bipartisan talks on the hill -- which we are aggressively supporting, if those don't work out, then we will have an option that will be ready. >> with the president's support something that is more conservative, more stringent than his principles, would be supported with the overall goal of getting a comprehensive bill? >> i will not say what we will or will not support in the abstract

because others point* out when the soviet empire fell apart, one of the first thing that the country's the old eastern bloc the first thing they did was make allies individual ownership of firearms. not because they would attack their government but they know that is a measure of stability and freedom and a symbol of freedom. in this country a lot of arguments over firearms has less to do with crime as it does with the symbolism of what the second amendment represents. prior to the wars of the late '60s and tear of the '70s, and the nra for the first 100 years of existence didn't spend any money on politics. it was not necessary. guns became a symbol of the culture war. after that happened we be long negative divided into two ideological camps, the politicians. it has less to do of war crimes for example, in every jurisdiction you will see the carry laws have passed there is a diminishing of gun crime. if you're concerned was crime, if you're michael bloomberg you say this works, but there is no empirical evidence and some degree of all sides to convince anybody because it is not about crime but your view

i think about that because others have pointed out when the soviet empire fell apart, one of the first things countries of the old east bloc, the first thing they did was legalize individual ownership to firearms, not because they would attack their governments, but because they know that is a measure of stability and freedom and it is a symbol of freedom. in this country, a lot of the argument over firearms has less to do with crime as it does with symbolism and what the second amendment represents. prior to the culture wars of the late '60s -- late 1960's, the nra for its first hundred years of existence did not spend money in politics. we did not have a lobbyist and it was not necessary. we divided into two ideological camps in this country. i am not talking about all the gun owners, but the politicians. it has had less to do about crime. in every jurisdiction, where concealed carries laws have passed, there has been a diminishing of violent gun crime. your concern was crime, and if you were michael bloomberg, you would say, this seems to work. there is no empirical evidence to convince anybody because it is not about c