That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. 

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. 

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could it be any simpler than that ??

USNA-At-Large, Bob Hinckley writes for your consideration; this comes from the “All enemies, foreign and domestic” files –

As a young Midshipman I had the honor of marching down Pennsylvania Avenue with the Brigade in the Inaugural Parade for President John F. Kennedy.

Little did I know that 48 years later I’ll be marching once again but for an entirely different reason – to protest the systematic destruction of the United States.

There are many USNA grads in the DC metro area. This is the time for all of us to get away from our TV and computer screens and show up Saturday, September 12th for the March on Washington!

Here is the info:

09.12.09 March on Washington

I’ll close with this quote:

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level” has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too “vigorous” in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl’s “vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was “a step too far” for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.

The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards. 

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith” and that the girl’s interests “would be best served by exposure to a public school setting” and “different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief … in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”

According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, “If I want her in public school, she’ll be in public school.”

The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering “the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others.”

“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working,” said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.

“The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take.”

“The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, ‘Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,’” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. “There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court’s decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions.”

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.

“Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda’s schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court’s decision daily,” the court filing requesting a stay said. “Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court’s ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

“It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be ‘exposed to different points of view’ if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda’s best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda’s faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda.”

“The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent’s constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be ‘exposed’ to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old ‘vigorously’ believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court’s narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs,” the ADF said.

“Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court’s decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible,” the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn’t even look at homeschool curriculum.

“I don’t want to hear it. It’s all Christian based,” she said.

The Brownsville Tip of Texas Tea Party did their part today, demonstrating their opposition to Congressman Solomon Ortiz’s support of Obamacare.

By Steven Crowder

Sometimes, us Conservatives need to pat ourselves on the back.  In my case, it’s a very hairy one.  Sure, Obama is slimy enough to re-phrase, re-package and re-slip the “Public Option” through… But the fact that he even has to do THAT is a testament to what the American people have done.  Sit back and enjoy your victory lap folks!

Tuesday, August 18, 2009
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer

Winds Of Change?

These past few months, I have shared with you news about steps left-wing and socialist politicians in Washington are taking to radically change this country. On this dog day of summer, I want to share with you some recent developments that suggest that the winds of change may have shifted yet again.

• As soon as Barack Obama was elected president, he stressed the urgency of passing the largest spending bill in our nation’s history. The one trillion dollar “stimulus” was supposed to save us from a depression. In fact, it is the only major legislation that Barack Obama has pushed for and successfully signed into law. According to a new USA Today/Gallup poll, 38% of Americans believe the stimulus will leave the economy in worse shape, while another 22% believe it will have no effect. The public has deemed the stimulus initiative a failure to this point.
• Two months ago, the House of Representatives passed the “Cap and Trade” bill. Many believe that legislation would systematically destroy the American economy and put us at a disadvantage against emerging global economic superpowers like China and India. But the bill may have run into a brick wall in the Senate. According to Bloomberg News, “Four Democratic lawmakers have said the Senate should scrap attempts to pass the cap-and-trade provisions … and focus instead on a narrower bill requiring the use of renewable energy.”
• Gallup has released another poll that shows more Americans identify as conservatives (40%) than as liberals (21%). That is the highest percentage of Americans self-identifying as conservatives in four years. In fact, conservatives outnumber liberals in every state in the Union. Only in the District of Columbia do liberals outnumber conservatives.
• Last week I reported that the Obama Administration was making an “enemies list” of people distributing information critical of healthcare reform. Yesterday, the Administration reportedly shut down the e-mail address that was being used to report this “fishy” information. You won’t hear about this story in the mainstream media, but Fox News has been reporting it consistently.
• Two months ago, pollster Scott Rasmussen found that half of voters favored congressional efforts to pass healthcare reform. This weekend, he released the results of a new survey that found only 35% of voters believe the current reform bill should be passed, while 54% of voters say no reform at all would be a better option than passing this bill.

The Co-Op Trap

A number of commentators have suggested that the Obama Administration is in full retreat on a key element of healthcare reform – the government-run public option. We are warning our friends not to assume anything. The Left is putting tremendous pressure on the White House to preserve the public option. Yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement reaffirming her support for the public option, noting, “There is strong support in the House for a public option.  In the House, all three of our bills contain a public option, as does the bill from the Senate HELP Committee.” In addition, Politico reports today that at least 60 House members have signed a letter stating that any “final proposal for the president’s signature, MUST contain a public option.”

What is “Plan B” if the public option is out? One key senator, Budget Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota, says that healthcare cooperatives could provide additional competition to private insurers. But an Associated Press story today notes that co-ops have a “checkered history.” Instead of being government controlled, co-ops function as non-profit entities with at least half a million subscribers each.

While some co-ops have succeeded, the Associated Press reports that “Many have failed over the decades because they were unable to compete effectively” or because of problems between doctors and governing boards. In addition, the government would have to provide billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidizes for startup costs, and it’s unclear how much control the government would assume or how many mandates it would impose for the cash. If the co-ops can’t compete effectively, would the Obama Administration nationalize them as it has done with Government Motors?

I hope members of Congress who are concerned about preserving the free enterprise system will think twice about healthcare co-ops. As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, the closest thing on earth to immortality is a government program. It is more likely than not, in my view, that the healthcare co-ops started with big subsidies from the government will ultimately be co-opted by Big Government, a “compromise” leading to the public option that Obama seems willing to abandon today.

“The Panel”

There is an unbelievably powerful fictional short story in today’s Wall Street Journal that describes what it might be like in the future for an American to obtain the authorization of government bureaucrats for needed medical care. You can read it here.

Thomas D. Segel
Tom@thomasdsegel.com
www.thomasdsegel.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

America’s Leaders – Or Congressional Cowards?

Harlingen, Texas, August 19, 2009:  They came from across the Rio Grande Valley.  Citizens of every stripe, Democrats, Republicans, Independents and even non-voting youth from three counties were there. They gathered at a Town Hall meeting in Harlingen, Texas last night. 

A meeting room in the city library was filled to capacity with a standing-room-only crowd of more than 150 people.  Speakers were also placed in an outside patio area next to the meeting room, where another hundred taxpayers assembled to hear information on healthcare reform and other Administration proposals.  Everyone showed up, except the two individuals elected to represent those same voters in Washington D. C. 

“Here in Texas”, said one man, “we appreciate people with backbone, but that seems to be a missing body piece on the two members of Congress representing the southern tip of the Lone Star State.”

Though Texas is a very conservative state, the strength of the Democrat Party rests in the southern counties, all with majority Hispanic populations.

The 15^th Congressional District stretches from the Rio Grande Valley to the Coastal Bend.  Voters have sent Ruben Hinojosa to Washington seven times since 1996, but he couldn’t be located to answer four separate Town Hall invitations, sent over several weeks to his office by constituents asking him to attend their scheduled gathering.

The Congressman, who is known for being a frequent flyer at taxpayer expense, was off on another junket to China.

When told of this latest “fact finding tour”, one Town Hall participant said we shouldn’t be too hard on Hinojosa.  “After all” said the man from McAllen, “he is our best representative – for Nancy Pelosi.”

Representing the 27^th Congressional District of Texas is Solomon P. Ortiz. Though his district covers an area from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande Valley, he is rarely seen in Brownsville or Harlingen and only appears when he is handing out money from a pork laden piece of legislation or running for reelection.  Still, voters have sent him back to Washington repeatedly since 1982. 

Ortiz not only refused to attend the Town Hall meeting, but also had his aide, Jose Borjon, insist to the media that only a member of Congress had the right to schedule such an event. “We feel that town hall meetings should be held by elected officials,” said Boejon.

Borjon said the Congressman also objected to his political challengers being members of the Town Hall panel. “Why can’t the constituents just talk to the people who are going to vote on health care reform.  What is the point of having others there?  He later reversed himself saying, “We want to make sure all parties are included”.  But, the Congressman still had no plans to attend the meeting.

Ortiz has also said that he might answer some questions via telephone, but would not be yelled at by voters.

How did this “no show event” come to pass?  First of all, it did not happen for lack of trying.  One man made repeated attempts to gain their participation.

Art Cohan served more than 20 years in the Marine Corps before retiring to help teach young men about leadership at the Marine Military Academy.  He is now fully retired and spends his days making sure his 13 grandchildren and 9 great grandchildren, along with everyone else he can reach, understand the Constitution of the United States of America.  He feels it is his responsibility to educate everyone about the Constitution and how our elected officials, almost from its inception, have violated it.

On four separate occasions, Cohan and the other meeting organizers sent letters to the two congressmen who represent Cameron County.  Because congressional mail takes at least two weeks to get into the hands of representatives due to security concerns, each mailed invitation was followed up with emails also requesting the elected officials to attend.

Congressman Ruben Hinojosa not only ignored the request from his constituents, but also refused to acknowledge the invitation and turn it down in writing or by telephone.  He then had his aide call The Valley Morning Star newspaper to tell the editor constituents should not organize Town Hall Meetings and that representatives of other political persuasions should not be present.

The reason Independent candidate Willie Vaden, Republican candidate Eddie Zamora, and Democratic candidate Douglas Purl were invited was to make certain some panelists would be present when the elected representatives refused to acknowledge their invitations.

Says Cohan, “I do condemn the two representatives for hiding from constituents.  I attribute part of it to arrogance, and a lot of it to fear.  They simply do not want to face the music, and answer constituent’s questions.  Perhaps they cannot.”

During the two-hour question and answer event everything was addressed from the Second Amendment to excessive spending. The majority of the questions and statements, however, were on the subject of healthcare reform.  Everyone in attendance remained very civil, but it was evident that the audience was extremely angry when they faced the podium and two empty chairs.

Posted By Bobby Eberle On August 18, 2009 at 7:26 am

Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress, they have sought to take control of talk radio… or to be more precise, conservative talk radio. You see… on radio, the market place (yes, left-wingers hate the “market place”) has spoken, and people love conservative talk radio. Not only that, but they hate liberal talk radio.

There have been multiple attempts to revive the so-called “fairness doctrine” by the Democrats which would force radio stations to carry left-wing talk shows whether the listening audience wanted them or not. These attempts were met with enough resistance, that the Democrats stopped trying to overtly bring back the “fairness doctrine.” However, that simply means they are trying covert methods instead… thus, the creation of America’s new “diversity czar” at the FCC… and this guy is a real doozy. 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter yesterday to Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In it, Grassley expressed his concerns over the appointment of Mark Lloyd as the commission’s associate general counsel and chief diversity officer. The senator “is concerned with the appointment due to Lloyd’s writings on political talk radio and the Fairness Doctrine.”

“The appointment of Mark Lloyd to be the Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer is at odds with assurances that the FCC would not reinstate the Fairness Doctrine that Mr. Genachowski made prior to his U.S. Senate confirmation,” Grassley said.  “I hope Mr. Genachowski stands by his word and reaffirms his commitment to me that the FCC won’t be considering anything that accomplishes the goals of the Fairness Doctrine.”

So, what is Mark Lloyd all about? As Grassley notes in his letter to the FCC chairman, Lloyd served as a Senior Fellow at the left-wing Center for American Progress. During his tenure, he helped author a paper titled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.

Lloyd and co-authors note, “Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.” Progressive? Give me a break. Even they are too afraid to use the word “liberal.” Here are a few more notes by Lloyd and company:

* Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

* A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

Liberal (or progressive) talk radio has tried to gain an audience time and time again. People don’t like it. They won’t listen to it. And these radio stations can’t make money during those time slots. So, the shows get canceled. Seems like a pretty simple formula, right?

Just look at the “remedy” for fixing the ills of conservative talk radio as proposed by Lloyd:

* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.

* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

Pay a fee to support public broadcasting? This is absolutely crazy, but it shows the liberal mind in action. If the American public won’t support left-wing ideas through the market place, then the American public will “support” them through government radio. Forcing radio owners to pay fines to support public radio if they don’t abide by “public interest obligations” is scary. Doesn’t the public decide what’s in the public interest?

Lloyd wants to tax radio stations to the point of airing left-wing programs. This is the ultimate in government coercion! The liberals don’t like the fact that the public prefers conservative talk radio, so they will force radio stations to change.

Grassley and others have a right to be concerned, and they should demand that Lloyd be replaced. (I recommend that the whole “diversity czar” position be eliminated.) The government needs to keep out, and let the public decide what the public wants to listen to on the radio.

David Horowitz

For the conservative, the Constitution is not a convenient discourse, but a repository of pragmatic and durable truths about liberty and prosperity in a social order.   No one reading the argument of the Federalist Papers, which is an argument about the lessons of history can fail to understand this.   The truths embodied in the principles of the Constitution were validated for the founders by the experience of previously existing states.   They have been confirmed in our lifetimes by the end-results of the two-hundred year war of the Left against the philosophical and political framework of “bourgeois” freedoms—against the idea of negative liberties and the practice of limited government; and by the Left’s establishment of societies based on its own radical principles of positive freedoms, which include affirmative “rights” to food, shelter, clothing, employment, and equality; and by the catastrophes they created.

In a famous afterword to The Constitution of Liberty, Hayek explained why he was not a conservative in the European sense.   “Conservatism, proper,” he wrote, “is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change.”   It therefore can not “offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving.” And that is a problem, given the dynamism of capitalist society, the openness of the American polity, and the ascendance of radical ideology over the last half century.

– “A Conservative Hope” from The Politics of Bad Faith

Click on the image above to open it in a new window. 
Article contribited by Art Cohan.