As we marvel at the idiocy of school boards and administrators who openly violate state laws of their choosing (Arlington school board originally voting 3-3 over recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance) and wishing to distribute condoms to grammar school kids without parental notification, it may be instructive to re-visit “The Professors, The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America”.

The Professors by David Horowitz was first published in February, 2006 and was republished with a new preface as a paperback in June of 2007 (Regenery Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC).

The book is a compendium of 101 mostly Marxist professors who believe “that political activism SHOULD be an integral part of university curricula.” (emphasis mine) Gone are neutral professors giving both sides of an issue, requiring students to engage in critical thinking in order to develop their own views.  Gone are the tenets of the Scientific Method and the search for truth, long held to be the touchstones of a classic liberal education.

Instead we have the following two examples:

Professor Michael Vocino at the University of Rhode Island who, according to one student, introduced himself in his first lecture as, “My name is Michael Vocino and I like **** ( a part of male anatomy.” He then asked a student , “Are you queer?” and another whom he knew to be a Christian why Christians “hate fags.”

Professor Frederic Jameson of Duke University, an admirer of Mao, who wrote in his seminal work The Political Unconscious; Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Art “the political perspective (is) the absolute horizon of all reading and interpretation.” Students are urged to approach literary texts not as works of intrinsic merit but rather as “socially symbolic acts.” In another text he bewailed the “baleful” spread of global capitalism.  In a post 9/11 forum he stated “the Americans created bin Laden during the Cold War.”

The introduction alone to The Professors is worth reading.  It reviews the uproar that ensued at Hamilton College when a student took it upon himself to let the world outside the college know that Ward Churchill had been invited to speak at Hamilton.  Churchill was a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado.  After 9/11, he had written that the victims of 9/11 were “little Eichmanns”. His visit to Hamilton would have been the fortieth campus to which he had been invited to speak in the three years after 9/11.

Since 1934, the University of California “Academic Personnel Manual” had a statement that ” the function of the university is to seek and to transmit knowledge and to train students in the processes whereby truth is to be made known. To convert, or to make converts, is alien and hostile to this dispassionate duty”.  In 2003, 69 years later, by a vote of 43-3 of the Faculty Senate, this passage was removed from the Berkeley personnel manual. In its place was inserted  ”academic freedom requires that the Academic Senate be given primary responsibility for applying academic standards.” In other words, as David Horowitz writes, academic freedom is whatever the faculty says it is.

If you’ve got kids going off to college, you might take interest in their courses and syllabi.  In any event, if you read The Professors, you’ll realize just how entrenched the Left is in academia.

In an effort to promote and spread our conservative message, we’d like to encourage Tea Party members to write Letters to The Editor to your local papers.  Don’t be intimidated by them.  Editors are looking for your opinion so you don’t have to be an expert.  They are not difficult to write and are read by a great many people.

Editors prefer for you to respond to a previous article or opinion piece.  You can refute or support the piece or address pertinent facts that were ignored.  You can also address current legislation or an issue that’s been in the news.  You can respond to a positive or negative piece written about a candidate you support.   Basically, you can take any state or local policy issue or piece of legislation and apply the Tea Party Mission Statement.  Look for ways to promote the following:

• Limited government
• Free markets
• Free speech
• Individual liberty
• Personal responsibility

It’s not necessary to identify yourself as a Tea Party member if you prefer not to although most of us are proud to announce our support of the tea party values.  You may merely wish to reference the TP such as:  “maybe the Tea Party is on to something” or something similar.  Try to avoid social issues – stick with fiscal ones.  Social issues have a way of being divisive — even among Tea Party members.  We can usually all agree on the fiscal issues.

These tips will help:

You must include your name, address and daytime phone number with your letter. Instructions for submitting a letter to the editor are usually at the bottom of the page where they appear or on the paper’s Web site.  Find out from your local paper the best way to send a letter.  Some papers like them mailed, others prefer faxes, while others favor e-mails.

Do not send attachments. Include the letter in the body of the email.  Address it “Dear Editor.”

Make one clear logical argument. The piece should be in favor of or critical of a particular position taken by the paper or described in an article.  Support your statements with statistics, anecdotes or results of studies.  Editors cut from the bottom, so make your point at the beginning.

If responding to an article, cite the article. Be sure to mention the title and date of the article you’re responding to in one of your first two sentences.  For example “Dear Editor, Your recent coverage of the issue of the uninsured (“Healthcare in America,” May 13, 2005) was a thoughtful piece…”

Be brief. Generally, four to six short paragraphs are ideal.  It’s best kept between 150- 200 words.  If you can’t contain the piece to that length, consider asking someone to help you edit it or write a 750-word op-ed instead.

Try humor, if the piece lends itself to that.

Express your opinion with conviction and passion. But do avoid vitriolic or disrespectful language.  Such letters will likely not be published and if they are will turn readers off.

If appropriate, mention your Representatives and/or Senators or a candidate. This will ensure the message will reach them.  Staffers monitor media “hits” – sometimes on a daily basis.

Proofread! If possible, have someone else look at it.  They may find a mistake you overlooked.

Consider sending a similar letter to different papers. The letters can be similar but should not be identical.  Do not cc other papers in your email.  Send them separately.

Below is a list of the larger papers in the Greater Boston area.  This is only a partial list and may not include smaller community papers.  Also consider church publications if the letter is appropriate for such a venue. Please let us know if you find a publication that is receptive to our conservative message, and we will add them to our list.

• Andover Townsman (Andover) nfater@andovertownsman.com
• Athol Daily News (Athol) adn@atholdailynews.com
• Barnstable Patriot, The (Hyannis) letters@barnstablepatriot.com
• Beacon Hill Times (Boston) editor@beaconhilltimes.com
• Bedford Standard Times (Bedford) Letters@s-t.com
• Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield) letters@berkshireeagle.com
• Boston Globe (Boston) letter@globe.com
• Boston Herald (Boston) letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com
• Cape Cod Chronicle, The (Chatham) letters@capecodchronicle.com
• Cape Cod Times (Hyannis) letters@capecodonline.com
• Christian Science Monitor (Boston) letters@csmonitor.com
• Daily Free Press (Boston University) dfpletters@gmail.com
• Dorchester Reporter, The (Boston) letters@dotnews.com
• Eagle Tribune (Haverhill, North Andover, Lawrence) awhite@eagletribune.com
• Gloucester Daily Times (Gloucester) gdt@gloucestertimes.com
• Hampshire Gazette (Northhampton) opinion@gazettenet.com
• Haverhill Gazette (Haverhill) editor@hgazette.com
• Herald News (Fall River) pluce@heraldnews.com
• Inquirer and Mirror (Nantucket Island) mstanton@inkym.com
• Jewish Advocate (Boston) Stevem@thejewishadvocate.com
• Landmark, The (Holden) editor-at-thelandmark.com
• Martha’s Vineyard Times (Vineyard Haven) lettertotheeditor@mvtimes.com
• Newburyport News (Newburyport) mbuchs@newburyportnews.com
• Patriot Ledger (Quincy) editpage@ledger.com
• Reminder, The (East Longmeadow) News@ReminderPublications.com
• Salem Evening News (Salem) nbenton@salemnews.com
• Standard Times (New Bedford) Letters@s-t.com
• Sun Chronicle, The (Attleboro) mkirby@thesunchronicle.com
• Taunton Daily Gazette (Taunton) eic@tauntongazette.com
• Telegram and Gazette Online (Worcester) letters@telegram.com
• Valley Advocate (Springfield, Hatfield) tvannah@valleyadvocate.com
• ValleyPatriot (Merrimack Valley) (monthly) ValleyPatriot@aol.com
• Vineyard Gazette, The (Edgartown) news@mvgazette.com

As the President raises the stakes in the immigration debate, I highly recommend the website of the Center for Immigration Studies  www.cis.org.  It is a veritable treasure-trove of facts, statistics, research papers, and questionniare results that are given great credence by nearly all parties in the debate.

A few excerpts and condensations from some of the more interesting polls and articles follows:

A 2009 Zogby opinion poll taken IN MEXICO found:

* A clear majority of people in Mexico (56 per cent) thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the US (amnesty) would make it MORE LIKELY that people they knew would go to the US illegally. Only 17 per cent thought it would make Mexicans less likely to go.

* At present 12-13 Mexican-born people live in the US.   36 per cent of Mexicans (39 million people) say they would move to the US if they could.

* 69 per cent of Mexicans thought the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans (Mexico and US born) should be to Mexico.

* According to Homeland Security, in  2008 one of six new legal immigrants was from Mexico; six of ten illegal immigrants was from Mexico.

MINORITY VIEWS ON IMMIGRATION

In contrast to the leadership of many ethnic advocacy groups, most members of minority groups think immigration is too high.  56 per cent of Hispanics, 57 percent of Asian-Americans, and 68 per cent of African-Americans say immigration is too high and only 7 (Hispanic), 5 (Asian-Americans) and 4 (African-Americans) say it is too low. 14-18 per cent of the minority groups say it is just right.

Most members of minority groups do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration as many ethnic advocacy groups argue; instead, minority members feel it’s due to lack of enforcement (61 per cent of Hispanics cite inadequate enforcement; 69 per cent of Asian-Americans and 70 per cent of African-Americans).

TEENAGE UNEMPLOYMENT

Teenage summer employment has declined dramatically over the past fifteen years. In the summer of 2007, in the ten occupations employing the most US-born teenagers, one in five workers was an immigrant.

IMMIGRATION AND THE NEW CALIFORNIA

This study states that in 1970 California had the 7th most educated work force in the country (measured by per cent of its workers who had graduated from high school). By 2008 California ranked dead last – 50th- as a direct result of immigration.

www.cis.org. has a wealth of information and position papers.  Well-worth a visit as the immigration issue heats up.

Personally, I’m married to an immigrant and cherish both her and the achievements and industriousness of the many immigrants who enrich the US.  But I do believe in the rule of law and that a prime responsibility of any government is to protect its country’s borders.

I work in the psychiatric field, so very little shocks me.  However, I was completely incredulous to learn of a publishing company putting a warning label on reprints of the Constitution and other historical documents.  The disclaimer, by Wilder Publications, also appears on copies of its Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers.  It reads as follows:

“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.  Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

Excuse me, but since when are our founding documents so offensive that they need a disclaimer?  If our core values have changed so drastically since our country was born, it’s certainly news to me.  I have a few questions.  What exactly are they suggesting that children need to be briefed about?  Do our impressionable children need to be shielded from the dangerous concepts of limited government, free speech, individual liberty, personal responsibility and free markets?  Where did Wilder Publications get the asinine idea that such a disclaimer was even necessary?

I consider myself fortunate not to have children in the public school system because God only knows what they’d be learning.  If I did have children, I certainly “might wish to discuss” with them the value of home schooling.  There seems to be an enormous push in schools to apologize for America and accentuate the flaws in our history.   However, the growing popularity of the highly patriotic Tea Parties demonstrates how out-of-touch such “revisionist history” has become.  Sure, we’ve made mistakes, and our founding fathers had their share of flaws, to which many of them willingly admitted.   This is the very reason they believed so strongly in the “Rule of Law” as opposed to the “Rule of Men.”

American Majority published a pamphlet entitled “Why America is Great,”  where they write the following about our founders:

“They looked back and learned from history what worked and what didn’t.  They understood the unflattering aspects of human nature, and instead of glossing over them, they confronted them and built safeguards against them.  They built a new nation on principles that even they imperfectly understood and imperfectly applied.  But they knew these principles were true and that they were worth fighting—and dying—for.  Let us, also imperfect, follow their example… Let us not pin our hopes or try to build our future on the fads or “ologies” or even the movements of the moment, but instead upon the principles that have stood the test of time.  The time has come to renew those principles in our nation—to learn to apply them in the age in which we now live.”

Amazon.com has gotten hundreds of negative reviews from customers regarding Wilder Publications’ disclaimers.   I’m happy to see I’m in good company.

In what passes for an exciting night on the town for this political junkie, I attended a spirited debate between Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute and Peter Kadzis, Editor of the ultra-liberal Boston Phoenix.  How liberal is the Phoenix?  My friend Patrick, in expressing his disgust with their front page article “Tea is for Terrorist,” was tempted to bring a sign to the debate reading, “P is for porn.”

Hosted by the Ford Hall Forum, moderated by Dominick Ianno, the men discussed the lessons learned during the financial crisis.  Yaron Brook gave a passionate performance of which Ayn Rand herself would have been proud.  He opined that the financial mess, leading to the meltdown that began in 2008, was caused by 2 flawed policies:  the Federal Reserve policy and the housing policy.  The all knowing, all powerful Federal Reserve, in order to avoid a recession, had kept interest rates below the rate of inflation for 2 years.  Money suddenly became cheap and everyone borrowed.  To make matters worse, this collided with the government’s misguided housing policy of the past 10-15 years, devoted to getting people into homes whether or not they could afford them.  Brook stated, “After all, it’s the American Dream.”  However, he does not believe it’s the proper role of government to make that dream come true.  He added, “The banks acted stupidly believing they’d be bailed out.”

The much maligned Free Market, if left unencumbered by crippling regulations, does a fairly decent job of regulating itself.  If a business fails to create a product that people want to buy, or if they design a device that is unsafe or unaffordable, they will be forced to adapt their business model or risk bankruptcy.  In the Free Market there is no such thing as “too big to fail.”  It may seem harsh, but the resulting competition and innovation benefit us all.  Conversely, if an industry gets bogged down with mandates and regulations, the cost of doing business increases and everyone suffers. Brook calls these regulations, which grew exponentially during the Bush Administration, akin to “government using force to interfere in transactions between consenting adults in the business world.”

Peter Kadzis, on the other hand, defended regulations, calling them “a necessary evil,” and “part of living in a complex society.”  He believes it was bad policy and lack of regulation that made the financial collapse possible, and that what’s needed is “smarter regulation” to ensure consumer protection.  There’s just one problem.  Our government is so thoughtful and compassionate that they insist on “protecting” us from everything imaginable, including ourselves.  It’s that concept that inspired my favorite Tea Party sign, “Please Don’t Help Me Anymore, I Can’t Afford It.”

In his Wall Street Journal article, “’Atlas Shrugged’:  From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years,” Stephen Moore wrote the following:  “The current economic strategy is right out of ‘Atlas Shrugged’:  The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you.”

Here he sums up the book’s message:

Politicians invariably respond to crisis—that in most cases they themselves created—by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations.  These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs … and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.”

According to Brook, the more complex an industry, the less it should be regulated.  He cites the bailouts as a prime example:  “The government panicked and we were all affected.”  Government should not involve itself in the business of industry “simply because they are not qualified.”  He maintains there is “no such thing as smart regulation.”  Responding to a question about the enormous unfunded liabilities, Brook offered, “We’re on a raft in the river heading towards a waterfall and we’re rowing with the current.”

Kadzis shared Brook’s concern for the future of our country’s financial health.  Regarding healthcare he disclosed, “I love the idea of national healthcare in theory, but America is adapting social systems after they have failed in other countries.”  He blames this on the labor movement’s backing of President Obama.

In 1991 “Atlas Shrugged” was rated by readers as the second-most influential book, behind the Bible.  Its increasing popularity is due to the chilling similarities between events in this book of fiction and events in society today.  Take, for example, the following passage found on page 413:

Watch money.  Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.  When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed.

Why are we constantly being told that self interest is a wrong and immoral?  When we risk everything to start a business, improve upon or invent a product, we are motivated by our own self interest.  By pursuing these endeavors, at the same time we improve the lives of our families, employees, customers and society as a whole.  Yet, we are supposed to feel guilty for making a profit.  Brook stated, “Let’s face it, when you go to the mall you are not doing it to stimulate the economy.”

During Q&A Kadzis told the audience that he and Brook were, “speaking in a theoretical realm” and he doubted that their words would make any real difference.  To that, Brook passionately disagreed, “I have every intention of making a difference!”  The audience immediately erupted in applause.  Brook observes “a lot of power behind change—just not Obama’s change.”

Your odds are greater of being mauled at the zoo than becoming a victim of right wing violence.  That’s why I’m tired of hearing ad nauseum that the Tea Party and conservative talk shows are inciting violence among disenchanted Americans.  The ambassadors of doom and gloom hastily, and often erroneously, seize upon every opportunity to attribute any act of aggression to radical right-wing angst.  Ironically, the most noteworthy of all political violence has been perpetrated by the radical left.  Let’s recap, shall we?

• Last summer an Obama supporter bit off the finger of an opponent of socialized health care.

• At the G20 Summit, anti-capitalist demonstrators started fires, smashed windows and threw items at police.

• Eco-terrorist group ELF committed major crimes including arson attacks and driving spikes into trees, resulting in the injury of several loggers.

• In September 2008 a liberal tried to sneak a bomb into the Republican National Convention.

• May Day demonstrators, reported by the mainstream media as “mostly peaceful”, shattered windows, injured conservative activists and splattered storefronts with graffiti.

• First accused of being a right-wing radical, Joseph Stack, who flew a plane into an IRS office in Texas, left behind a manifesto quoting Karl Marx and denouncing capitalism.

• Amy Bishop, the woman who shot several co-workers, was an Obama supporter.  A family member described her as a “far-left political extremist” and “obsessed” with the President.

• Holocaust Museum shooter James von Brunn, far from being a conservative, was an anti-Semite and socialist who idolized Adolph Hitler.  He believed “Christianity and the Holocaust were Hoaxes.”

• Liberals burn down Hummer dealerships and destroy AM radio towers.

While it’s true that Americans are frustrated, I find it both insulting and wildly irresponsible to suggest that conservatives are impressionable enough as to be so easily led astray.  In fact, the very thought of inflicting violence upon others goes against our sensibilities.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been advancing her own brand of nincompoopism with her over the top apocalyptic statements.  In the biggest display of crocodile tears ever, she warned of folks repeating the 1990’s violence she witnessed in San Francisco.  I swear if she gets any more hysterical we may have to turn the hose on her.

Glenn Thrush of Politico reported that one of the Speaker’s top aides admitted she was referring to the murder of gay rights activists Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone.  In a thoughtful response to Madam Pelosi’s remarks, National Republican Committee Chairman Pete Sessions said the following:

“No longer content to criticize concerned citizens for being ‘Un-American,’ the Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination.  Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda.”

Various circumstances may cause a person to become violent.  Dr. Bruce Perry, an international authority on brain development wrote in his article Why does Violence Happen, “Some violence is due to impulsive behavior, some due to the disinhibition by drugs or alcohol, some due to serious mental illness, some to hate, revenge or retribution.”

While there is ultimately no way to predict violence, there are proven methods to decrease its likelihood.  People sometimes resort to violence when they feel they have no other choice.  In my work as a psychiatric nurse, I am well versed in crisis intervention.  The best way to deter violence is to insure that people have choices and to empower them with some element of control over their situation.  I would contend that the Tea Party, 912 groups and conservative media, by providing an outlet for frustration and giving people a sense that they can affect change, may actually deter those who might otherwise turn to violence.

Dr. Perry writes:

“When we become more detached from each other and from common unifying beliefs, violence increases. Without being connected to others, we care less for their welfare.  When we share common bonds of belief and value with others, we are less likely to be aggressive or violent to others in our community.  When individuals become isolated, marginalized and without some connection to those around them, violence increases.”

Therefore, you could argue that the populist conservative movement, rather than being dangerous, actually provides a service to the community.  I have experienced an amazing atmosphere of comradery at Tea Party events.  Although justifiably alarmed by our government’s massive overreach and out of control spending, we conservatives are generally good natured, well mannered and charitable people who know how to have a good time.  We also do a fair amount of policing our own.  Most of us have little difficulty reminding peers to check their vitriol, offensive signs and general knuckleheadedness at the door.

It was disappointing in that Brandeis University truly failed to grasp how ridiculous their “mistake” to include the Tea Party in such a discussion was, even if the point was to point out how unlike the Nazi’s we are. It was disappointing in that it was just another run of the mill what-happens-in-Europe-could-be-happening-here–and-we-wouldn’t-even-know-it paranoid delving into the minds of academics that never leave college campuses, except to travel to other college campuses to deliver symposiums. It was, as always, disappointing in that it was a typical bash-the-Right event, where the definition of the Right has been so corrupted that those of us with even some basic knowledge of history are left wondering what’s Right and what’s Left anymore. (I may have to start writing R’s and L’s on the bottom of my shoes.) And it was, as always, disappointing that tolerance for anything other than the most Left of philosophies is still non-existent in academia, where arrogance runs rampant, the coffee is undrinkable and everyone is always just a few minutes late.

I got word of the event via email while out of town. I received many messages from members of the Greater Boston Tea Party wondering if we would be marching on the campus or staging a sit-in. I got calls from Boston media asking how we would respond. The University called to ask if we would be protesting – who’s coming, which media outlets will be covering the event, what kind of sound system would we like – as if they were truly looking forward to our presence. I had no idea we had so many among our ranks ready to step up and defend our honor. I was pleasantly surprised.

I was also pleasantly surprised when my inquiry to Brandies as to whether or not a non-academic Tea Party leader would be permitted to participate in some way resulted in a conversation with the amiable yet oblivious organizer of the event, Sabine von Mering. She apologized for not thinking through fully the use of the swastika on the poster. We had a polite and thoughtful conversation where it was explained to me that in no way, shape or form did the University equate Tea Party activists with Nazi’s. It was also explained that a lot of phone calls and emails were arriving and some were not very nice. I couldn’t help but wonder if Brandeis received similar correspondence when they hosted Bill Ayers. I told Sabine to buck up as I get messages all the time that are inappropriate to print.

Anyway, I went to the event with three other Tea Party pals and we sat through the discussions – all of them. Apparently not much has changed since I graduated from college nearly 20 years ago. Academics are still tardy for everything and they still complain about how they never have enough time to explain themselves and they still whine about how misunderstood they are. And they laugh at jokes that are not funny. Honestly, I think I should be awarded continuing ed credit for sitting through it all. It was truly excruciating. When I got home that night, I suggested to my husband we raid our child’s college fund and take a badly needed vacation (to Arizona!) because there is no way we’re letting her go to college if this is the kind of schlock to which she will be subjected.

I’m sorry to be so blunt but do we or do we not know that:

• The NAZI’s were bad – and they were socialists, ie Leftists.

• When you ban something, ie Mein Kampf or the NAZI party, it raises interest in said banned item (see Happy Meals).

• Europe has an unfortunate history of grievous crimes against various ethnic groups, ie ethnic cleansing, some of it quite recent.

• The United States has no such history, unless you count Planned Parenthood. (Slavery does not count because it was not ethnic cleansing.)

• You don’t use the swastika unless you’re trying to garner attention, are stupid, or both.

If we can all agree that those are true, and I’m sure we cannot since common sense is so sadly lacking these days that we need to pass laws that define “bullying”, then such silly symposiums will become unnecessary. Unfortunately, since we have all these old, stuffed shirt, tenured Leftists out there who simply require a regular audience to which they can spew their twisted version of history, ironically in order to achieve tenure, we will have to suffer these fools. I recommend we continue to do it loudly and determinedly and vociferously, especially when the kids are around.

Vive la difference!

By Christine Morabito

As I venture deeper into the bizarro world of political activism, I’ve discovered an activity so outside my comfort zone that it causes me to break out in hives. I’m referring to the agonizingly tortuous act of signature collecting.

Several months ago I made a commitment to assist a local candidate in his race for US Congress. I deeply believe in my candidate’s conservative message of limited government and free markets, thus I am willing to take one for the team. I also recognize the vital importance of getting conservative candidates on the ballot.

Last week I was collecting signatures at my local library and had a surreal experience. There I was with my clipboard and phony smile, hoping for the sweet release of death. I had chosen the library that day because the US Census Bureau was putting on an event that I thought might draw a crowd. The event was called the Census Portrait of America Road Tour, a civic outreach and awareness campaign touring cities around the country.

The event included 2 huge tour buses, a big screen TV playing videos and a large network of educational display panels. They had tables loaded with census schwag that they—and by they I mean we the people were giving away. There was a plethora of “free” items including: t-shirts, hats, travel mugs, pens, pencils, magnets, tote bags and chip clips.

A library visitor approached me and I asked for her signature. She was so distracted by the spectacle she said, “Wow! Is this where all my taxes are going?” I could only shrug.

I imagined the census workers to be rather left-leaning in their politics, so I did my best to stay downwind of them as to not engage them in conversation. I was not there to debate anybody, only to collect signatures. Much to my surprise, several of them went out of their way to approach me and they were extremely pleasant. One gentleman brought me 2 tote bags full of “free” stuff. He said one was for me and one for “a friend.” I figured my imaginary friend and I were paying for the stuff anyway, we might as well give it a good home.

I was pleasantly surprised by the response I got to asking for signatures. It was a stark difference from the vibes I got from people outside Market Basket, where I was more likely to be told, “I don’t even vote” or “I’m all set” (I still don’t know what that means). At the library, people were less likely to traverse the entire parking lot just to avoid me. It occurred to me that perhaps library patrons tend to be better educated and more civically engaged than the average citizen. For the most part, they seemed to have a basic understanding of the nomination process and some were eager to learn about my candidate. Another benefit was that they seemed to be in a more leisurely mindset. It sure beats stopping people against their will while they are rushing to the grocery store to pick up some milk.

What I found puzzling about the census being there was that if my theory was correct, the library was probably a poor choice of location for their civic outreach. If these people are indeed civically engaged, wasn’t the census preaching to the choir? Why were they spending valuable time and untold amounts of taxpayer money when most people accepting their bag of goodies said they had all ready filled out the census and mailed it in? I’m no marketing genius, but it seems to me that if they wanted to make a real difference, it would make sense to do outreach in neighborhoods where people were less likely to complete the census, yet would benefit most from the resulting public services. Perhaps in the inner city and minority neighborhoods were census participation is notoriously low? But what do I know.

At the end of the day they were packing up and a census worker was nearby filling up her trunk. She asked if she could sign my signature sheet. Unfortunately her residence was outside the district, but I appreciated her making the effort. I could not help but notice her abundance of liberal bumper stickers with slogans like: “All you need is love,” “Practice tolerance” and “Give peace a chance.” I didn’t have the heart to tell her my candidate was a Republican.

By Jared Rhoads

Federal tax returns are due soon, once again leaving some of us wondering where our money goes and what we get for it.  Last year, federal tax revenue plunged 34 percent to $138 billion.  With fewer people working and uncertainty surrounding the uptake of deductions, the IRS does not know what to expect this year. (On another front, at least the agency did promise to improve its toll-free telephone taxpayer support service.)

Perhaps the government could learn something from Adam Smith. In Chapter II of Book V of The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776), Smith proposed four principles of proper taxation. The section is titled, “Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society.” His points are not flawless, but there is nevertheless a lot to agree with. From Smith:

1. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible … in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

2. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gatherer, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself.

3. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.

4. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.

If the government were to heed these principles, much would be improved.  But we need to keep focused on the deeper financial problem, which is runaway government spending.  Without a reduction in spending, the publicly-held portion of the national debt will double over the next 10 years.  Entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are already running dry and threatening us with financial ruin.

If we have the moral courage to speak out against unfair taxation, then let us go one step further and demand smaller government, limited government: a government focused on protecting rights, not redistributing wealth.

Jared Rhoads is the director of The Lucidicus Project, an educational initiative to help medical students learn about the moral and economic case for capitalism. (http://Lucidicus.org)

By Christine Morabito

Call me crazy, but when I needed money for college, I got a job.  Sure, I missed a few TKE parties and games like “quarters,” but it built character and kept me out of trouble (mostly).  I was recently dumbfounded to learn of another entitlement program slated for expansion. This one is aimed at college students.  It’s the former food stamp program that was renamed in 2008 to Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program or SNAP.  The program is being championed by both universities and—you guessed it—our federal government.  Come to think of it, my school had a supplemental nutrition program of sorts.  We called it the keg party.

The promoters of SNAP were concerned that students might be embarrassed to use food stamp coupons, so they came up with a nifty credit card.  After all, doesn’t every student have a right to a credit card?  I’m sure it fits nicely inside their trapper keepers.  By the way, do the kids still use trapper keepers?  Why not make an app for their iphones (surely they all have one), and have groceries delivered right to their door.  Those students with discriminating tastes prefer to use the credit at high end organic stores like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods.  What, no ramen noodles or mac and cheese?  Goodbye government cheese—hello government brie!

The welfare state mentality has truly jumped the shark.  About 13% of Americans are now on food stamps.  It was no surprise to me that Obama’s latest budget calls for 72.5 billion in food stamps–nearly double the amount in 2008.  If these programs work so well, shouldn’t we have fewer people on them?  This administration is doing everything in its power to promote “cradle to grave” entitlements.  I have no problem with food stamps for the needy, but to expand the program to include college students?  Really? According to the Northwood University blog, “Should College Students Use Food Stamps” (Nov. 19, 2009), “Students are not needy in any real sense;  they just have a cash flow problem.”

As a college student who began working in my parent’s restaurant at age 14, I was definitely a minority.  I couldn’t believe how many of my classmates hadn’t worked a day in their young lives.  Promoters of SNAP are trying to convince students that they’ve “paid into the system” so they deserve to use it.  The problem is that some students are just self centered enough to buy into that nonsense.

Another argument made by supporters is that the program is necessary to offset the ever increasing cost of college tuition.  I would offer this as yet another example of the government causing the very problem it is claiming to solve.  According to College Board, “Trends in Student Aid, 2008”

The growth in federal spending on higher education subsidies has increased the number and percentage of postsecondary students dependent on government aid.  In the 2007-2008 school year, 5.4 million students received Pell Grant scholarships—compared to 3.7 million in 1997-1998 and 2.9 million in 1987-1988.

From College Board, “Trends in College Pricing, 2008”

Years of increased federal subsidies and dependence on student aid has been followed by consistent growth in college costs.  The College Board reports that published tuition and fees at public and private four-year institutions rose at an average annual rate of 4.2 and 2.4 percent after inflation over the past decade.

William W. Beach of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis wrote in “The 2009 Index of Dependence on Government” (March 4, 2010): “By continuing to increase student aid, and expand the pool of students who are able to access aid programs, government spending increases on higher education have made students less sensitive to college price increases and facilitated runaway spending by many colleges and universities.”

It would seem the solution to reducing college costs is for schools to increase competition by lowering costs to attract more students, not to add more and more students to the government dole.  In her book The New American Revolution Tammy Bruce eloquently stated, “It is extraordinary to answer only to myself.  It is a freedom every one of us deserves.”