Well, I assume that this lesson plan is a companion to the one that ends with the quiz: 1. How would the US have faired in the two world wars without the innovation created by capitalism? 2. How would life be different for low-income, disabled, and retired Americans without the services provided by private charities like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army? 3. Do you think the United States would have been able to attain and hold its position in the world today without an armed and ready citizenry bolstered by the Second Amendment? 4. Would the American lifestyle, as we know it, have evolved without the positive influence of Christianity? That's the other class they teach, right?

I wish, I just wish, that the next time a liberal in a debate accused his conservative opponent of racism, that the conservative would respond with ridicule instead of treating the absurd criticism seriously. Say something like, "Oh, am I expected to respond in kind? Okay, Your mother wears army boots. Now that we've traded juvenile insults like a couple of third-graders, can we get back to an adult conversation of the issues?"

When the government starts saying that they are not sure whether or not a particular statement is a crime, how could we possibly interpret that statement except to mean that it might be a crime and they are considering whether or not to prosecute. We have already crossed the line: that statement alone will intimidate some number of people into being silent, whether or not anyone is actually prosecuted. And let's not forget, at least one person is already in prison for making an anti-Muslim movie. (On trumped up charges of parole violation, of course, but no one seriously questions why he is there.) It doesn't take many prosecutions to scare off a large number of people.

So the Attorney General holds a meeting to discuss his renewed commitment to freedom of the press. He then makes clear to journalists that reports on this meeting will be subject to government censorship.

Surely the root cause of the problem is that the IRS has the authority to make such decisions to begin with. I don't care how objective someone is trying to be or claims to be. When a government agency has the power to cost you serious money based on their opinions of the purpose of your organization, it is difficult to imagine how there could NOT be discrimination and corruption.

Under Obamacare, a visit to the doctor will effectively be a visit to a government agency, where treatment will combine the smooth efficiency of the motor vehicle bureau with the compassion of the IRS.

I recall when they were first pushing Obamacare, a frequent slogan was that once Obamacare was in place, the first question the doctor asked you would no longer be "Do you have insurance?" or "How do you intend to pay for this?" And I'm sure that that is true. Once Obamacare is fully in place, when you visit a doctor the first question he will ask will be something more like, "Have you completed forms 897B and TX-321 pages 1 through 20 and 25 through 49?"

Well, to be fair here, somebody does lose: the owners and employers of the companies that have to face subsidized competition. And the political reality is: If one person who owns a business stands to lose his $1 million per year income, and 10 million consumers each stand to gain $1 each, the net benefit to the economy is $9 million. But that one rich person has a huge incentive to lobby his Congressman and yell and scream and make campaign contributions to protect his business. Most of the 10 million consumers probably don't even know what's happening, and if they did, if they wrote a letter to their Congressman about it the cost of the stamp alone would blow half their potential financial gain.

I asked a woman what time it was and she said "2 o'clock". I think she said that in a very sexual manner. It was clearly sexual harassment. I'm going to file a complaint.

I have a simple solution to the accusations of racism against the Tea Party: I think no one should be allowed to join the Tea Party until he frees all his slaves. Also, all Tea Party groups should sign a contract vowing to promptly expel any member who is convicted of participating in a lynching. Once the Tea Party demonstrates its willingness to take these radical steps, I think it would be fair to demand that there be no further accusations of racism.