A friend sent me this socialism analogy today — Election Day 2010 — with the reminder that our test is today! Be sure to vote responsibly and for the good of our nation. Let us hand our children and grandchildren a free nation that obeys our Constitution and respects our individual liberties.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that 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 socialism. 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.

As the tests proceeded, 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.

This 2 minute 18 second video vividly highlights massive differences between the more limited government positions of President Reagan and those of the Democratic Party leadership in Washington today. Watch and see who is really for the people and who is fighting for special interests benefits under big government.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Someone sent me this via email. I don’t know who to attribute it to but, as a Southerner, I thought it was funny and wanted to share. It’s entitled “Are You a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?” Here is a humorous little test that will help you decide:

You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you…

You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat’s Answer:

* Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!

* Does the man look poor or oppressed?

* Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

* Could we run away?

* What does my wife think?

* What about the kids?

* Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

* What does the law say about this situation?

* Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?

* Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

* Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?

* Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

* If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

* Should I call 9-1-1?

* Why is this street so deserted?

* We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.

* Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

* I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

* This is all so confusing!

Republican’s Answer:

BANG!

Southerner’s Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Click….. (Sounds of reloading)

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click

Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?!”

Son: “Can I shoot the next one?!”

Wife: “You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist!”

Disclaimer: I know this “test” is stereotyped and not all will find it funny.  While I am not trying to offend anyone, I am likewise not willing to bow before the “politically correct police.”  I wish everyone would just lighten up a little and laugh about these things a bit.

Someone forwarded me an interesting “poem” that resembles a Dr. Seuss writing. If Dr. Seuss wrote about the nationalized health care legislation that was recently jammed through and shoved down our throats he might have said something like this:

I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.

I do not like these dirty crooks,
Or how they lie and cook the books.

I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.

I do not like this speaker, Nan,
I do not like this ‘YES WE CAN.’

I do not like this spending spree,
I’m smart, I know that nothing’s free.

I do not like your smug replies,
When I complain about your lies.

I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it, nope, nope, nope!

I don’t know whom to attribute this cleverness to but I think the author did an excellent job of expressing my sentiments with a dash of humor. Regarding those in Congress who voted for this unconstitutional bill, I think they should resign and leave us alone so others can undo their damage!

This is a guest post by Tim Jones that originally appeared on PonderPost. It was published on May 11, 2009 and is republished her with the permission of Tim Jones since PonderPost is being restructured for a future relaunch.

I live in Florida and know a few gay couples that were married, here in Florida.  You might be saying, “I thought gay marriage had not been legalized in Florida?”  Well, you’re right.  As far as the government is concerned, it’s not a legally binding contract, as a standard marriage.

However, they were married, in a church, in Florida, with the full bridal party, and rings.  We’ll come back to that, in a minute.

Marriage is a sacrament — a state of grace or a vocation between you, your spouse, and God.  When I got married, I wasn’t particularly concerned with what the government thought or did with respect to my marriage.  I just wanted to be married to my wife.  I wanted my church’s blessing and my parent’s blessing, but I did not concern myself with the state’s blessing.

Many churches (not the Roman Catholic faith to which I belong) in Florida will perform weddings for gay couples.  You can have the full ceremony, complete with flowers, music, and reception.  With the blessing of these churches and your family, you can be a married couple — what would seem to be the most important part of this sacred union.

With that in mind, I’m not stopping anyone from getting married in the state of Florida (or any other state, for that matter) and truly, neither is the state of Florida.

The “fight” for gay marriage is nothing more than a red herring designed to grab money from the public coffers for a small minority population, in the name of “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “political correctness.”

Any gay couple, anywhere can get married, if they want to badly enough to find a church that will marry them.  Will they have a license from the state?  Maybe, maybe not, depending on the state.  But what difference does that make?  Isn’t the important thing that you committed your life to another in the name of love and they did the same?

Apparently, that’s not enough for the gay community.  They want all the rights and benefits afforded heterosexual married couples.  This is nothing more than a continuation of the vicious spiral our country has found itself in, where everyone wants their piece of the pie, along with part of yours.

It’s more of the entitlement mentality that will ultimately destroy the foundation of our country and revoke our liberty.  Gimme, gimme, gimme.

You want to marry your gay lover?  Go for it.  I certainly won’t stand in your way, but stay out of my pocket.

Someone sent me an interesting analogy via email today. It’s an adaptation of one of Aesop’s most popular fables known as The Ant and the Grasshopper. While I’m sure this work could be improved upon, it is thought-provoking in light of our federal government which seems intent on penalizing work and the accumulation of wealth by those who take risks in business and are self-reliant.

I quote this adaptation below (original source unknown) for you to ponder on the political implications. Please share your thoughts after reading this adaptation of the Ant and the Grasshopper.

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shiveringgrasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.  How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green….’ ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.” Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight. Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on theant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

Someone emailed me this image yesterday. It is entitled “Government Snow Plow” and includes the caption “Designed by the same people designing the health care reform” below the image.

I think this picture cleverly depicts the often staggeringly inefficient results of non-market-based interventions within our economy. Over time a truly free market weeds out most waste and excess. Conversely, politicians like to hand out favors (our Founding Fathers called it largess) using our money and thus perpetuate, and expand, government waste.

I don’t know who to attribute this image to but it sure is clever. I also feel the email’s health care analogy is pertinent. Think about this: how can we trust our federal government to manage the entire nation’s health care system for 300+ million people when they can’t even take good care of a few million veterans? What think you?

Last night I watched Bobby Jindal give the Republican Response to the State of the Union. I like Bobby Jindal and I liked his message. He is a good leader who has done great things already and has incredible potential.

Unlike the opinions of many TV talking heads and analysts, I think Governor Jindal did reasonably well for such an artificial setting. In fairness, he did not shine to his potential; however, his performance was no worse than many other governors before him in previous years and was better than many. The audio quality was poor which was no fault of his own.

So, with the above in mind, why did the Republican Party allow him to be subjected to such an artificial situation? Why not put him on a stage flanked by American flags and with a crowded room of fans who would interrupt with applause lines? Why did the Republican Party not think about minimizing the contrast between the President’s amazing State of the Union setting and the almost sterile environment of the Republican Response?

I am ashamed that Bobby Jindal had to endure any national ridicule, especially over things exaggerated by aesthetics. His message was good and appropriate but the setting was no match for people who don’t think deeply. More can and should be done in future responses to level the playing field and put Republican candidates in a more favorable light.

Sadly, NBC rejected an uplifting pro-life Super Bowl ad produced by CatholicVote.com. The excuse given is that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving “political advocacy or issues.”

This ad is a project of the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy and represents the first release of a national media campaign. It is entitled “Life: Imagine the Potential” and you can watch it below.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In my opinion, after the recent massive financial bailouts and other interventionist federal actions (and in some cases nationalizations) within our economy (i.e. the private sector), several pressing questions remain unanswered. I have been pondering on five of them for some time now. These are listed below in no apparent order.

1. If bad loans got us into this situation, then why is there so much effort to get banks to loan even more money?

If there is a dollar to be made and people are free to act in rational ways, then somebody creative will find a way to earn that dollar. My thinking is that in spite of the negative news regarding financial markets right now, there remains a market for loaning money to people with good credit. If this is the case, then there must be people willing to make a profit in such a market and so they will loan money to those with the means to pay them back. No crisis there.

On the other hand, the market for people with bad credit (i.e. people who you shouldn’t loan money to) has dried up and rightfully so. That should be a good thing. It made no sense to make risky loans but such actions were encouraged by foolish government policy that distorted reality and created an artificial market for bad loans. No loans to people who should not get loans means no crisis there either.

So let’s fast forward to now. I want to know why there is all the fuss about banks not loaning money then? It’s good banks are not making more bad loans. To push them to loan on a large scale again seems to me to further push us into the mud. We’re supposed to be getting ourselves “unstuck” but loaning more would seem to do just the opposite and compound our already bad situation. That doesn’t make a bit of sense.

2. Bailouts rewards bad performance.

Corporate leaders are paid to lead. Part of leading means avoiding problems. It seems to me that we have a bunch of bad leaders at many financial institutions (and in government) since they led their companies (and federal policy) on a path of suicide. Why should the government reward these guys with a bailout? Seems to me that such actions simply reward their poor judgment and punish those who kept their companies out of trouble.

As for the auto industry in particular, I have some specific thoughts along these lines. They were on an unsustainable path by operating at a loss and piling up debt for so long. Instead of cutting back, rethinking, retooling, living within their means and building products that customers want (and will turn a profit), they were unwilling to change. A bailout will just put off the invevitable and reward their past negatives. Where is the incentive to adjust to market forces and make an honest profit by pleasing customers like all other businesses have to do? Furthermore, a bailout invites the government to meddle within an essential American industry. That’s an incredibly dangerous proposition.

3. Bankruptcy and subsequent restructuring allows serious change to occur quickly.

Bankruptcy can give a company temporary relief while forcing hard decisions to be made and implemented under court order. In some cases, ownership changes as assets are sold or even repossessed. Physical assets, however, don’t disappear just because ownership changes. In most cases of high profile companies, ownership changes don’t kill the company. Just because ownership or the company name changes doesn’t mean the demand for that type of product ends. Good news! That means, then, there is still a market for those products.

Think again of the American auto industry. If General Motors were to go bankrupt, the demand for vehicles would not cease. Somebody would still build cars in most of those General Motors factories. The other companies could not step in overnight and build enough cars, trucks and parts to meet consumer demand. That means there is still a huge market for, and thus incentive, to keep General Motors alive.

If left alone, I predict that instead of collapse, bankruptcy and much-needed restructuring would occur within the American auto industry. The result would be an industry that is much stronger and more competitive for the future after undergoing the tough decisions needed now.

4. We’re on a slippery slope to socialism and nationalization (i.e. communism).

I alluded to this thought above. I don’t like the federal government taking taxpayer money (or borrowing money that taxpayers will have to repay) and “buying” or assuming ownership of private companies or even parts of them. I see no Constitutional authority for such a move and it is highly contrary to the tenets of capitalism.

This economic downturn is not a problem with capitalism. Instead, it is a problem caused by government interference that distorted free markets by preventing them from properly regulating themselves and rooting out bad loans and risky behavior. In short, government created this problem and now we’re asking government to fix it? How foolish is that?

5. Finally, why have certain leaders not been fired for their incompetence?

We have a Treasury Secretary that serves at the will and pleasure of the President. There are leaders in Congress that oversee financial committees and other influential boards and administrative bodies. Corporations and banks have leaders. Surely these leaders should have seen this problem coming years ago. After all, they are paid to prevent problems such as this.

The very fact that so many of our leaders, from the Treasury Secretary down to corporate executives, either didn’t see the problems or failed to warn of them makes these individuals part of the problem. Instead, and making the case even worse, it seems many of these leaders contributed greatly to the problem. That scenario suggests they are guilty of inept leadership. Simply put, they are incompetent.

In short, those incompetent individuals who contributed to this problem should be fired and replaced with competent individuals who will work to get their companies and our country out of debt and on a solid financial footing. I’m troubled that I can think of nobody who has been fired for their part in creating this problem. Instead, they are awarded billions to spend and authorized with questionable powers to “fix” what they either helped create or failed to avert. That response seems about as reasonable as giving gas and matches to an arsonist.

So, in conclusion, these five ponderings have occupied a great deal of my thought (and frustration) over the past few months. Please share your ponderings below.