Teachers who get it.

Sorry for the lack of frequent posts we had a visitor and then I was not feeling well.

If you have not heard Teachers' Unions have contributed over 1.3 million dollars to ACORN. ACORN has been involved in illegal alien home loan racket. ACORN has been advising people to commit fraud on their taxes and ACORN has been defunded by the House and Senate check out BIG Government.com to learn more. Some teachers not agreeing with the NEA agenda decided to leave.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Yes Taxes Are Immoral

The following piece appears on Townhall.com. I totally agree that taxes are immoral, I have found that most people who support taxes either live off them via wages or welfare.

Quote of the Day - “There is no such thing as a good tax.” - Winston Churchill

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

The Left Is Right -- Taxes Are a Moral Issue
by Dennis Prager

One principle that all those on the left hold is that taxes constitute more than an economic issue; they are, first and foremost, a moral one. Economists on the left may argue for higher taxes on economic grounds but they and we know that at bottom, higher taxes, especially "taxing the rich," is what they believe morality demands.

For example, there are obviously only two possible ways to reduce government deficits: reduce spending or increase taxes (or some combination of both). The left advocates the later; the right advocates the former. Left-wing spokesmen, such as New York Times economics columnist and Princeton University professor of economics Paul Krugman, may offer economic arguments for raising taxes in order to lower government deficits, but their real motivations are moral: reducing economic inequality (by redistributing income) and expanding government (because government is the most effective way to help all citizens).

Now, as it happens, not only is there is nothing wrong with being animated by moral concerns -- we should all be. The problem with the left's advocacy of higher taxes is not that it is rooted in moral concerns. The problem -- actually the two problems -- are these:

First, higher taxes are rarely morally defensible. In fact, on purely moral grounds -- in other words, even if they did effectively reduce the deficit without paying an economic price for doing so -- they are usually not moral. More on this below.



Second, higher taxes are usually economically counterproductive. This does not matter to the left, however, because economic growth is not what most interests the left. Since Karl Marx, the left has always been far more interested in economic equality than in economic growth. It is true that liberals such as John F. Kennedy were more concerned with economic growth than with economic equality -- which is why he advocated lowering taxes -- but for much of the last century, unlike today, there was a major difference between liberal and left.

Now to return to the moral arguments, my difference with the left is not that I oppose morality dictating economic policy. I believe, in fact, that virtually all social policies should be rooted in moral concerns. My difference with the left is that I am convinced that moral considerations dictate lower, not higher, taxes.

It is too bad that libertarians and conservatives rarely take on the left on moral grounds because the left's moral foundations are as weak as their economic foundations.

The very notion of an income tax is morally debatable. On what moral grounds can the state force a citizen essentially at gunpoint to give away his legally and morally earned money? Why isn't taxation a form of legalized stealing? The obvious answer is that common sense dictates that citizens have the moral right, even the moral obligation, to vote to give money to, at the very least, enable a government to fund a police force, sustain a national defense, and help those incapable of helping themselves or of being helped by others.

But at some point beyond that, taxation becomes nothing more than legalized stealing. Obviously, people will differ over where exactly that point is, but no rational person disputes that such a point exists. No one could argue that a 100 percent tax -- even if it paid for every need every member of the society had -- was moral and not simply a form of theft.

So moral problem No.1 with taxation is the morality of forcing other people -- under threat of violence -- to give their money away.

A second moral problem is having some people give at a greater percentage rate than others. The biblical notion of tithing, for example, is entirely universal -- everyone gave a tenth what he had. No one was forced to give half while others gave a tenth.

A third moral problem is allowing those who pay no tax (such as the federal income tax) to vote on how much others will be forced to pay. It is quite difficult to morally defend the fact that about half of Americans pay no federal income tax, yet they determine how much the other half will be forced to pay.

A fourth moral problem is that the higher the taxes, the more decent people become cheaters. One of the leading religious ethicists of our time, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, author of two volumes of Jewish ethical law, told me years ago when he lived in Israel during the height of its socialism with its correspondingly high taxes that he witnessed the finest citizens, religious and secular alike, having to cheat on taxes or be rendered impoverished. I have never forgotten that.

I know no one in America today -- and I know extraordinarily honest and generous people, liberal and conservative -- who does not in some way "cheat" on taxes -- as, for example, reporting expenses as business expenses that are not really so. I place the word cheat within quotation marks because not all cheating is illegal. Some people figure out how to avoid paying what the law demands through completely legal, but ethically questionable, means.

At a certain level of taxation, virtually every honest person is reduced to cheating either legally or illegally.

A fifth moral problem is that the higher the tax rate, the lower the charity rate. This is universally true. The more people give to the state, the less they give to their neighbor -- and even to members of their family -- in need.

And sixth and only finally because of the limitations in size of a single column, the higher the taxes, the less people are inclined to work hard. Why should they? At a given point, people just conclude that work is for suckers.

And I haven't even begun to discuss the economic failings of higher taxes.

So, next time someone on the left advocates higher taxes, remember two things: He or she is coming from a moral, not an economic, position. And the moral case against higher taxes is far more powerful than the moral case for them.

Little old Croydon had one of their very own at the 9/12 March in Washington, DC

Waiting for an update of one of Croydon's very own at the 9/12 March in Washington, DC. I wanted to go myself but my mother-in-law was in town.

Someone from Newport sent me the following email. "Brian and I went to the Tea Party in DC yesterday. What a great day and tremendous crowd of patriots. Don't believe the news reports that give attendance numbers in the "tens of thousands". Baloney. DC Police had the crowd at 1.2 million and other estimates went as high as 2.7 million, yet there was little coverage of the event by our great news media. Michelle Malkin has some photos (on her website) of the crowd stretching from the Capitol steps to the Washington Memorial."



Sadly much of the media choose to ignore the event and the media is distorting the numbers present. Surprisingly the media overseas covered the event better than in America.

America Thinker has a great article about the rebellion triggered in America. They article makes a great point, "Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural address in 1801 described what he called the sum of good government as, "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." But Jefferson also warned, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

I am not a praying person, but lately I have been praying for the survival of the Republic, our Constitution and our Country.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

There was a school board meeting last night.

We have visitors sorry for not posting. Would really like to see the notes posted on the Croydon Town website.

Theft!

"Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God." Walter E. Williams

How Did We Ever Make It Before Nanny Government?
by Walter Williams (July 23, 2003)
Whenever someone says that this or that government program is absolutely necessary, I always wonder, "What did people do and how did they survive before the program?"



To read the rest of the story go to Capitalism Magazine.com.



I am a huge fan of Walter E. Williams he is one of the great Economist of our time and ranks right up there with Milton Friedman and Ludwig Von Mises.


Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

To Listen or not to Listen That is the Question

The following is a list of 11 reasons why Obama should stay out of the classroom by Michael S. Rozeff a retired professor.

1. The speech is beyond the President’s constitutional powers.
2. The President is supporting a national role in education, which also is unconstitutional.
3. The President is not supporting his oath of office, so he is conveying an anti-constitutional message to children.
4. The President is crossing a boundary between the political and social spheres. That boundary is in place in order to control government power and maintain a healthy free society.
5. The President is augmenting national power and influence.
6. The President is starting a new precedent that has dangerous implications.
7. The President’s speech cannot possibly be non-political. The very act itself is politically in furtherance of government and an enhanced government role.
8. The President also leads his party, and that fact may influence children.
9. The President may have an undue influence over children due to his position and power.
10. Will fairness considerations lead to equal time for opposition leaders?
11. Presidential access to communications is dangerous enough without extending it to youth.

To read the rest of this story go to Lew Rockwell.com.

Arne Duncan Secretary of Eduction is reporting that this is the first time a President is speaking directly to America's School Children. His statement appears to contradict the Union Leader article below. When and if I have a chance I will investigate George H. Bush's and Reagan's address to children. I believe Reagan's speech was on the television that is different. As I said, Arne Duncan's words and I quote are "This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school."



I do not want indoctrination from the left or the right occurring in public schools, especially with the poor performance in public schools we need to focus on educating our students not indoctrinating our students.

The below piece appears in the Union Leader. Still no response from Croydon or Newport schools.

Don't play the race card, there are plenty of black people who oppose this as well. Have a logical debate if you have to play the race card you can not have a logical debate on the subject matter.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Some NH schools to tune out Obama

By JILLIAN JORGENSEN
Sunday News Correspondent
Sunday, Sep. 6, 2009



As debate continues over President Barack Obama's planned Tuesday address to the nation's schoolchildren, many New Hampshire school districts are letting teachers and parents decide if -- and when -- students will listen to the speech.

For some teachers, that decision won't be made until after the speech -- once they've have a chance to listen to a recorded version and evaluate its educational value.



According to the White House, the speech will encourage students to stay in school, work hard to achieve goals and participate in community service. Some critics of the President, however, view the speech as an attempt to "indoctrinate" students to Obama's views.

Controversy over the speech erupted last week on cable news shows, talk radio and the Web.

Here in New Hampshire, some parents have been voicing their opinions to their local school officials.

Calls from concerned parents, many of them opposed to having their children listen to the speech in school, led Tim Mayes, Bedford's superintendent, to update his blog Friday afternoon.

The timing of the speech, logistical difficulties and technology "limitations" make it impossible for all Bedford students to watch the live broadcast of the speech, wrote Mayes. Teachers who can fit the speech into their lesson plan for the day, are permitted to do so, but are instructed to use their school Web pages to notify parents of their intentions.

Parents who want to watch the broadcast of the speech with their children are welcome, and students will be allowed to opt out of the activity, Mayes said.

"What we would typically do is, they would deal with that teacher and that teacher would give them a different instructional activity," he said.

No go in Manchester

It appears no students will be listening to the speech live in Manchester public schools.

Thomas Brennan, the district's superintendent, said the President's speech is being handled under a district policy on outside speakers in the classroom, which allows individual school principals to determine whether the presentation has educational value. Notice is sent to all parents, and if some do not want to have their children participate, the school has to provide a "meaningful alternative," he said.

As of Friday, Brennan said, no city schools were planning to participate in Tuesday's live broadcast, although some may record the speech for possible use at a later date.

Michael Delahunty, Salem's superintendent of schools, is leaving the decision up to teachers, with students allowed to opt out. But he said he does not see the speech as political or ideological.

"It's a matter of somebody in a position of high regard and accomplishment just telling kids they ought to press forward and stay in school," he said.

If this were 50 years ago, he said, schools would have been clamoring to have children all gathered around a single TV set to listen to the President.

"My personal opinion is that's a mistake (to opt out)," Delahunty said. "I think the parent ought to be watching it, too, and have a dialogue with the child afterward."

Mike Morgan, superintendent of School Administrative Unit 16 in Exeter, last week sent a message to all school administrators, advising them not to show the speech live, but allowing schools to tape it and consider showing it later.

"We have some concerns about a captive audience," he said.

There's also a practical, educational concern, he added: "I don't like teachers showing anything in class, generally speaking, without having some type of preparation for it."

Rochester Superintendent Mike Hopkins is leaving the choice up to individual schools, and students can opt out. He expects some middle and high school classrooms will participate.

And while he has received a handful of calls from concerned parents, Hopkins said, "We believe that what (Obama is) going to talk about with students -- how important being in school is and working hard -- we think that's appropriate."

In Goffstown, the speech will not be shown in elementary schools, according to Stacy Buckley, school superintendent. Mountain View Middle School faculty will tape the address for a possible later showing, but will notify parents first.

And at Goffstown High School, teachers will have the option of showing the speech if it fits in with their classroom instruction. Parents who do not want their children to watch should contact the school, Buckley said.

The U.S. Department of Education told principals the speech is about accomplishing goals and working hard, Buckley said. "To me, that's a very positive message we should be giving all our students," she said.

Charles Littlefield, superintendent of SAU 15, which includes Candia, Auburn and Hooksett, said district principals polled their teachers about the speech. "We quite frankly didn't find any teachers that were interested in participating, and we wouldn't make them participate," he said.

Parents' views

The issue has sparked strong feelings among parents on both sides.

Joanna Countemanche of Raymond said she has no problem letting her two children, one in elementary school, the other in middle school, listen to Obama's address.

"I don't see why kids can't listen to the President we as a country elected," she said. "Parents have a right to do whatever they think is best for their child, but not letting them hear a speech sounds extreme to me."

But Londonderry grandmother Helen Martin said if her daughter, now in college, were still in elementary or middle school, she would "absolutely" ask to have her pulled from watching the address.

Frank Vicente, the father of a Londonderry Middle School student, said Obama's promise to keep politics out of the speech is important to him. "If it stays apolitical, then I don't have any problem with it, but only if it stays apolitical," he said.

Diana Neel of Salem said she had no concerns about her high-school-age son watching the address, but she might feel differently if he were still in middle or elementary school.

"I guess I understand the concern for brainwashing or whatever at that age," Neel said. "I do think a parent has the right to opt their child out of anything like that if they want."

Garry Rayno of the New Hampshire Union Leader staff, and Sunday News correspondents Alec O'Meara and Clynton Namuo contributed to this report.

A Letter from a School District in Illinois Regarding the Obama Presentation

I thought I would share this letter, this came from a cousin's school in Illinois. Friends in Croydon and Newport have reported they have not received any information from their school.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

"This is Dan Schweers, Superintendent of District 59, calling with two messages. First, all of our schools will be closed Monday, September 7, 2009, in honor of the Labor Day Holiday. School will resume on Tuesday, September 8th.

Second, concerning the President's speech on Tuesday, September 8, 2009:

In District 59, we will not view the speech live. Rather, we will record it and then show it to students at a later time, most likely later next week.



This approach makes sense for several reasons. First, as responsible educators, this will give us the opportunity to review the content, and then create meaningful learning activities to complement the President's speech.

As an example, if setting goals is a focal point of the speech, then teachers might also use it in conjunction with our goals-setting conferences, which take place several weeks from now.

Second, roughly a third of our students will likely need part or all of the speech translated. Recording and then showing it at a later date will enable us to provide adequate translators for our English Language Learners who require
such assistance.

Finally, we understand and are sensitive to the fact that some parents may not want their children to watch the President's speech. We want to give those parents an opportunity to exercise that option. However, given the fact that the
speech is Tuesday {which follows the holiday on Monday}, it would be very difficult to give parents that option if we were to show it live.

Regardless of when we show the video, parents will have the option to hold their student out of that activity.

Thanks, and have a wonderful holiday weekend."