The right to homeschool in the United States has been a long, hard fought battle. In many countries, it is still illegal. The public perception of homschooling is rather two-faced: People know homeschoolers on average outscore private and government school children on standardized testing*, but they still view the parents and students with skepticism.

This negativity was evidenced last week when Joy Behar from The View characterized homeschool children as "demented!"
Joy's slam did not escape Michelle Malkin's attention:

Joy Behar... [declared]...“a lot” of homeschooled children are “demented.”

We also find out, ..."She [Joy] was a…public school teacher."

At the end of Michelle's post, she lists some great links:

...they’re so much better off in public schools where “proper socialization” takes the form of ideological child abuse. Eh, Joy? [This was the case where public school teacher intimidates child for being pro McCain.]

Read about “demented” homeschool champions here. Homeschooling: A record of academic achievement and All in the family.

Homeschool parents know they are bucking the system. They really epitomize the American spirit that says, I don't want anything from you, government, just stay out of my way and leave me alone! Their stellar achievement record illustrate that American spirit is alive and well.

Even in Brookfield, some homeschoolers are looked at with skepticism. Last week I read on Dick Brunner's blog some comments about the library. (For some reason that blog was not posted today.)

One hinted that somehow there was something wrong with homeschoolers using the library: that Brookfield's circulation numbers were so high because of homeschoolers, and that some of the users might not be Brookfield residents. I wondered if that same concern would apply to St. John students hanging out at the library after school too? Or what about the Central students who pour in or parents bringing their toddlers there? What about senior citizens? Bottom line: anyone in Waukesha county can use libraries in our system.

One comment astutely pointed out that homeschoolers are helping taxpayers because like private schooled children, they don't cost taxpayers money. (Thanks for that one.)

I did use the library a lot when I homeschooled; so did my other Brookfield homeschool friends. We were city residents! (I only mention the comments to illustrate there is a level of discomfort for some people when it comes to homeschooling.) 

I was privileged to homeschool in an era where homeschooling was legal in every state, but that has not always been the case. In the early years, parents bucked the system in order to exercise their God given rights. The Homeschool Legal Defense Association is a great organization, helping homeschoolers ward off overzealous social worker's harassment as well as keeping an eye on legislation that would threaten homeschool rights. (They have been working to ensure homeschooling remains legal in California.) 

Often homeschoolers are bucking their families too. I was privileged to have family support for our decision to homeschool. Considering some of them were educators, their support was appreciated. Some homeschoolers are not so fortunate; often immediate family are their worst critics.

I would wager that most homeschooled adults would score better on that Civics test than public (government) schooled adults. This is not to say that they are smarter, just that homeschoolers usually devote more time to history, civics, and economics than public school students who must spend a lot of class time studying tolerance, diversity, HGD, DARE, and ACT preparation. Obviously, when mom is the teacher, she can reinforce school day concepts as they arise during the remaining parts of the day.

If you are interested in the subject of homeschooling, listen to McKenna Show Thursday Hour 2 Part 1 November 20th. She discusses the "demented" comment but also discusses homeschool test scores and achievement numbers.

It is a shame the pendulum is swinging more to the negative side again when it comes to homeschooling. I guess it shows you can never rest when it comes to defending your rights. If you are thinking of homeschooling, contact me. If I had to do it again, I would...in a heartbeat. It may have been my greatest life work. 

*I never did any standardized testing with my son, but these are available if a parent deems them important. 

Related news: German home schooling family seeks asylum in U.S.  

Links: 

Don't you love it?  Grow your own transplant parts from your own stem cells. Claudia Castillo gets windpipe tailor-made from her own stem cells: (My emphasis)

A woman has been given a new section of windpipe created from her own stem cells in an operation that could revolutionise surgery.

Claudia Castillo, 30, who lives in Barcelona, has become the first person to be given a whole organ tailor-made for her in laboratories across Europe.

A graft from a donor was used, but because it has been imbued with Ms Castillo’s own cells, there is no sign that her body will reject the organ.

Researchers and surgeons from Britain, Italy and Spain collaborated to grow tissue from Ms Castillo’s own bone marrow stem cells, using them to fashion the new bronchus – a branch of the windpipe. They believe that one day the approach will be used to create engineered replacements for other damaged organs, such as the bowel or bladder. In five years they hope to begin clinical trials in which laboratory-made voice boxes are implanted into patients with cancer of the larynx.

Please notice that this breakthrough did not come from embryonic stem cells, the stem cell research that the Democrats are so gung ho on. This comment rather says it all from the Times: 

We continue to have vast success with adult stem cells, but the Obamamaniacs still want to use live embryos, (which have not had one cure in over 25 years), to satisfy the pro-abortion crowd.  ...John Frank, Reading, USA

Stem cell research was a big issue during the presidential campaign. Obama ads lied about McCain and Palin's stance on stem cell research. Truth is, the adult stem cell research that Republicans support is already yielding about 73 benefits to human patients. You can read more about it at CNS, and on the Stemcellresearch.org site.

Embryonic stem cell research, touted by Democrats, has hit snags in that when embryonic stem cells were introduced to rats, tumor growth resulted. From CNS:

Stem cells obtained from human embryos, however, have not been successful in yielding results in scientific research thus far.

Why should we support that embryonic type stem cell research when adult stem cells are already being used successfully  on humans? That does not make cents or sense!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

On election eve, I quickly made this campaign button to illustrate my hopes for the 2012 ticket. I wore it to the Waukesha Republican Victory Party.

Barely there 2 minutes, a few women from the Waukesha Republican Party and I started talking. Are you part of the Republican Women's group, they asked? No, I said, although I did work a little on the last 2 campaigns. Why not? I explained it was because Republicans didn't support conservative candidates. Citing Republican State Senator Tom Reynold's 2006 race and the lack of support from the party, I said I now put my efforts into individual races instead of the GOP as a whole. They did not disagree. 

Then they spotted my button, and their eyes lit up. Where did you get that? I said I made it. They definitely liked the idea. These ladies were not alone. In the course of the evening, my humble button received enthusiastic support.

I know many blame Governor Sarah Palin for McCain's loss on Tuesday. But that sentiment shows how little those naysayers understand conservatives. It was very clear to me that fellow volunteers at the phone bank were there only because of Sarah, not McCain. Same with rally attendees.

As Senator John McCain gave his concession speech that night, he took the full blame for his failure to win. Amongst the Waukesha Republican faithful watching on the big screen, there was no murmur in the audience to the contrary.

When McCain thanked Governor Palin, the audience cheered. You would think BBC reporter Ali Reed was there in the room with us. In his What next for Sarah Palin? he reported the same reaction:

The sombre air at Senator John McCain's concession speech was momentarily pierced by cheer as Mr McCain spoke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The Wall Street Journal would like to see Congressman Paul Ryan become the House Minority Leader. (Ryan is not interested.) But they see Paul Ryan as many of us do, a rising star on the Republican horizon. Ryan for the Republicans, The party needs an economic spokesman:

... the Republican Party faces a choice. It can put the loss down to the country's fatigue with the Bush Administration and the bad luck of running amid a financial panic and shrug it off. Or it can choose a new direction, with new leadership, and retake the high ground it once occupied, especially on the economy.

...Mr. Ryan's economic knowledge and youthful energy make him the best choice [for Minority Leader] to pull his party in a more promising direction.

Sad to say, persona matters in politics. Obama's youth and charisma made him more attractive than McCain's old, tired warhorse manner. It has been said that if radio were around in 1800, Thomas Jefferson would never have won the presidency. Jefferson was brilliant on paper but not a great orator.

Conservatives, imagine a Palin/Ryan or Ryan/Palin ticket in 2012? With Ryan's grasp of economics and practical solutions and Palin being governor of the only state not in or headed toward recession, it could be a winning combination: A ticket with real conservative solutions AND articulate, attractive candidates. 

Sign me up! TeamSarah.org

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

It has become a family tradition to attended the Waukesha Republican's "Victory" party at the Country Springs Hotel.  Various local candidates stop in and give a pep talk along with Waukesha Republican leaders. This year most of us hoped for good news but were braced for the bad.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner addressed the crowd first. He quipped something to the effect that after 8 years of Democrats blaming President Bush for everything, with them in charge of the legislature and the White House, we'll be able to pin the tail on the donkey. (Donkey being the symbol for democratic party.)

I am not so sure anything will stick, but I enjoyed the imagery.

Next up was Congressman Paul Ryan. I think most Republicans in the room see Ryan as the future of the Conservative movement. Ryan outlined a path for the next few years that went something like this: Stand up for what you believe in. Work with Democrats when they are going in the right direction and when they're wrong, propose alternative solutions. (My emphasis) 

Congressman Ryan, if you recall, came up with a plan to reform the entitlement problem of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, called "A Roadmap for America's Future". The Democrats just ignore the impending insolvency of that costly trio.

Last to speak was Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. He too urged that Republicans present clear, conservative alternatives to liberal tax and spend policy. He is living proof that conservatism, when properly communicated, will sell even in very Democratic territory!  The key was presenting that conservative message in a clear and concise way--something almost everyone in the room knew the McCain campaign never did. 

As John McCain gave his concession speech the room was quiet. Not much disagreement when McCain said "the failure is mine." There was cheering when he thanked Sarah Palin.

The road ahead is steep, very steep, for true conservatives. But Scott Walker is living proof that people will support the conservative message if it is presented clearly enough.

I fear most Republican politicians and party officials still don't get it.

These might be of interest: It was a great victory - but not for the Left and

It made me feel better: PALIN 2012 RYAN
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Senator John McCain managed to get 56,494,802 votes, which translates to 46.4% of the total. That was 1.9% less than John Kerry received in 2004. Hardly the trouncing Bob Dole took in 1996 with his 40.71% of the vote or Carter's 41.0% in 1980 or Mondale's 40.6% in 1984.

Just for comparison purposes, President Bill Clinton never broke the 50% mark--receiving 43.0% in 1992 (Ross Perot was the spoiler) and only 49.24% in 1996.

I would still call McCain's 46.4% showing respectable, especially since Republicans didn't really choose their candidate.

If you remember the early primary season, Sen. John McCain was the favorite of the media. Talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin warned that once the nomination was sewn up, that favorite son status would be gone. They were right.

There was much speculation that Democrats crossed over to vote for McCain in the primaries because they felt he was the weakest candidate. They were correct. McCain may have been a Republican, but he was not a conservative in the Ronald Reagan tradition.

It is very difficult to muster enthusiasm for a candidate when he doesn't really represent your party's ideals, and the media knew that. I talked about this back in February:

Another problem I have with the prospect of a McCain nomination is that he very seldom gets the majority of votes in the states he wins. Certainly Mike Huckabee's strong showing in the south was a surprise too. McCain did not even receive over 50% of the votes in his own state of Arizona.

Today GOPUSA Eagle email sent this out: 

The Strange GOP Nominating Victory

Assuming John McCain gets the GOP nomination, it will show how whimsical history can be. It would be the first time in living memory that a Republican presidential nomination went to a candidate who was not merely opposed by a majority of the party but was actively despised by about half its rank-and-file voters across the country--and by many, if not most, of its congressional officeholders. 

Slit a Vein or Vote for McCain?
by Chuck Muth

While the conservative knock against Mitt Romney is that he started out as a moderate and has since moved to the right, John McCain started out on the right but has since moved to the left. Which is worse?

John McCain did a terrible job of articulating his message. Obama was still running ads that McCain would tax your health care the day of the election. McCain never explained that was not true. He never talked about Obama's 7% health care plan payroll deduction. McCain never explained that when the Bush tax cuts expired, most people's taxes would go up.

It took a civilian like Joe the Plumber to finally bring Obama's real stance on spreading the wealth to the forefront. By that time it was really too late. Despite the Drill Here, Drill Now movement, little was said about what an Obama cap and trade/no oil or coal stance would look like.

Republicans and conservatives were angry that McCain didn't talk about the issues. J.T. Harris pleaded with McCain to bring up the real issues. Did McCain ever really nail Carter and Clinton for the mortgage crisis? No.

John McCain was obsessed with his "reach across the isle" fantasy. Every time he talked about that or his campaign finance reform as a selling feature, I wanted to scream. Ironically, it was his own McCain/Feingold that helped do him in.  

When John McCain gave his concession speech on Tuesday night, my husband said, he is a class act--McCain was very gracious. Moments later I think Fox News' Brit Hume said the same.

Many, including myself, saw John McCain as incapable of really fighting for his positions. I've often wondered if his POW imprisonment was the reason. When someone experiences a severe illness or tragedy, their priorities in life change. They no longer can bear a grudge or sweat the small stuff.

Whatever the reason, it was a long shot that McCain would win. The voters that I spoke with who voted 3rd party or sat it out summed it up: the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

A McCain victory would not have been a conservative victory. (Even during the financial crisis he was still reaching across the isle talking about appointing Obama supporter Warren Buffet as Treasury Secretary--what would be wrong with Mitt Romney?)  

Without a Jimmy Carter we probably wouldn't have had a Ronald Reagan. But Carter inflicted a lot of damage in his 4 years, and Obama makes Carter look appealing.

President elect Obama already hinted he wouldn't be able to do it all in his first term. I hope he is right. In the meantime, Republicans, you better get your act together.  

PS Speaking of Class Acts, Brit Hume is stepping down "for a quieter life, spending time with his grandchildren and following his Christian faith."

Wisconsin Department of Transportation OPEN HOUSE: Proposed changes to Bluemound Road (east of Moorland Road, west of Sunnyslope Road), Thursday, Nov. 6th, 7-9pm
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I've been wondering about this for some time. Are some independents reluctant to voice support for John McCain because they don't want to take flack for supporting the Republicans? Democrats have incessantly talked against George Bush during this election cycle, as if they are running against him, even though George isn't running.

Amongst African Americans, I think there is a Bradley effect. Remember J.T. Harris telling McCain that he was taking a ...whipping for supporting McCain? J.T. continues to feel the heat.

The Investor's Business Daily poll isn't as hopeful for McCain today as it looked yesterday, but Obama still isn't 5% points ahead of McCain or above 50%. There are still 9.5% not sure. Are they really not sure or are they just not saying?

One interesting sidebar, there is another segment obsessed with George Bush. al Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": (Hmm, I wonder who they want to win?)

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting...

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama or Republican John McCain.

...Others say his [Obama's] planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

The only real poll that matters is the vote tally on election day. Go out and vote.

PS From Drudge: Interesting question: Can Obama win popular vote but lose election? And do remember that the early exit polls favored Kerry in 2004.

Sure, chances of Republicans retaining the White House are remote.

But some last-minute state polls show the GOP nominee closing the gap in key states — Republican turf of Virginia, Florida and Ohio among them, and Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, too.

If the tightening polls are correct and undecided voters in those states break McCain's way — both big ifs — that could make for a repeat of the 2000 heartbreaker for Democrats that gave Republicans the White House.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yet, there are those supposed Republican elitists who look down their noses at her with disdain. Some go as far as throwing their support to Barack Obama. Can someone who says they are a conservative or Republican really be for Barack Obama? Does that ring true?

Well, to put it in local context, it rings about as true as former Republican Mayor Kate Bloomberg and husband Frank Urban* endorsing Democrat Jim Sullivan for State Senate over incumbent Republican Tom Reynolds in 2006. From my Bloomberg's endorsement shows her true "blue state" colors:  

... in Bloomberg and Urban’s opinion, the Democrat they are endorsing is running to serve and represent the people of the 5th district effectively, “whether they are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between”. Think about that. How is that even possible? On every major issue, I disagree STRONGLY with that candidate’s position.

How is it I would be satisfied with him [Sullivan] representing me? How could a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, believer in lower taxes, pro voter photo ID, anti-benefits to illegal aliens, fiscal conservative like me ever be represented by someone whose platform is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, opposed to voter photo ID, opposed to requiring welfare recipients to prove their legal US status, and pro-taxation?

Any Republican espousing those liberal values would be an "embarrassment" to the Republican Party. But then, I asked myself, how well did Mayor Kate reflect my values? Not very well. So, why would I give any credence to her endorsement now?

And so, I give the same credence to these elitists' criticisms of Gov. Sarah Palin and endorsements for Barack Obama. Come to think of it, Obama's platform is much the same as Sullivan's--so just substitute the elitists names for Bloomberg and Urban and Obama for Sullivan. The issues are the same.  

There was a great editorial in Investor's Business Daily Friday, Palin and the Elitists. It contrasts those "Republicans" who don't approve of Palin with others who do and the reasons why.

They [the elitists] all seem to no longer connect to either the heartland or a new kind of leader who didn't make her way up through elite colleges or through a husband's or father's connections. Maybe that's too hard to absorb for those who inhabit the stratified, elitist political ecosystems of New York and Washington.

Those who say she isn't ready haven't bothered to "gather evidence of her 'unreadiness' ." "Their dismissiveness sharply contrasts to others [such as Bill Kristol, Victor Davis Hanson, and Mark Steyn] who've tried to find out who Sarah Palin is.  They find it impossible to dismiss her."

The editorial concludes with, "Maybe Palin's straightforwardness and promises of reform threaten some among the conservative commentariat. Bad news: If John McCain and Palin win this vote, they're in for a long four years".

The Republican elite didn't like Ronald Reagan either. When he ran, they dismissed him as nothing more than a B movie actor. History proved them wrong.

*I was unaware that Frank Urban passed away on Saturday when I posted this piece. My sympathies to his wife Kate and family. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further attract capital and grow the economy."

What was Harper's closest challenger, Liberal Mr. Dion's platform? "To levy a new carbon tax on business" and "flee Afghanistan."

What Americans will do on Nov. 4th remains the mystery. Will they be like their Canadian neighbors to the north and vote for the true tax cutter--especially on corporations--and pro military presence man John McCain? Or choose the wealth/income redistributor (remember Obama wants Bush Tax Cuts to expire) and abandon Iraq candidate Barack Obama?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

We value education in the United States. Parents often make sacrifices to send their children to good colleges. But do you know who is teaching your child? Do do you know what your young adult is learning at their school?

More and more information is coming out about William Ayers, the self proclaimed terrorist, member of the Weather Underground that bombed the Capitol, Pentagon, and police headquarters, and professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago. A terrorist, whose only regret about the bombings was "we didn't do enough," a college professor?

William Ayers has been in the news because of his connection to Barack Obama. I recently learned that Ayers hired Barack Obama to help distribute $50 million to Chicago schools, not to promote test scores or math, but to promote radicalism. 

In Ayers own words, he glorifies rebellion, "What is that spirit that we want to connect to? That spirit of rebellion, that spark of resistance, that spirit of insurgency." (Thanks Fairly Conservative) Don't you wonder what Ayers teaches in his classes?

Depending on the school, major, and class, some students are subjected to non-stop radical ideas and a strong liberal bias. UW-Madison is often referenced as the Communist Mecca of the Midwest or some variation on that theme. (Teachers stuck in the rebelious 70s was even spoofed in An American Carol.)

Often the bias isn't just in the classroom. Republicans at UWM found school policies to be different for them than for the Democrats when it came to voter recruitment. The Union told Republicans they couldn't even hang a poster! (I believe that has been remedied.) Last fall UWM tried to keep the Conservative Union group from bringing in former PLO member from speaking on "Why I Left Jihad."

I have heard students call up conservative talk radio programs such as Sean Hannity asking, what can they do about radical leftist teachers. If the student expresses his true conservative beliefs in an essay or on a test, they are penalized in their grades. Usually Hannity advises them to play along. It is still frustrating for the student.

But what about the student who doesn't even realize he is being proselytized?  

Talk to your college students about their classes--especially if they are taking classes such as sociology, philosophy, or history. You might be shocked at what their teachers are telling them. 

P.S. Radical agendas go on in elementary and secondary schools too. A Milwaukee school was reported to have Obama and donkey kicking McCain in the head posters in the halls. A Racine school is using Barack Obama's book in a class. Just this week School Field Trip to Teacher's Lesbian Wedding Sparks Controversy, but I'll save these for another day.  

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I saw An American Carol on its debut, Friday, Oct. 3. Usually I wait for a movie to hit the Budget Theater, but with these more offbeat type films, often you better see them when you can. (Same thing happened with the movie, Expelled. It just came out on DVD in case you missed that one.)

The movie had some very funny lines, bits, and situations, but also contained some real points to ponder. Actor Leslie Nielsen plays a grandfather of a Navy man, the Bob Cratchit of the story, who is about to ship out to the Persian Gulf. The Navy man's uncle is the Michael Moore-like character, Michael Malone--the Scrooge.

During a 4th of July picnic, Grandpa Leslie Nielsen's grandchildren beg him for a story. He then tells them the American Carol story, how, anti-American Michael Malone (Scrooge) tried to abolish the 4th of July. (Malone cannot abide that holiday because it celebrates our war of independence, and he is a pacifist at any cost.) There is also a little of It's a Wonderful Life mixed in, where Michael sees what would have happened if President Lincoln had been a pacifist too.

Jacob Marley's ghost is John F. Kennedy. (If you remember, Director David Zucker was a Kennedy Democrat.) Kennedy comes out of the TV and scolds Michael for not listening to his inaugural address where he promises to stand by any country seeking liberty. 

There are also many funny scenes that involve the terrorists, who are plotting to blow up Michael Malone's anti 4th of July rally. (If you can call terrorists funny.) 

The same terrorist who said suicide bombers were getting harder to find because all the good ones were gone also said something about illegal immigrants: We need the Mexicans to do the jobs the Tali ban won't! (The audience roared at that one.)

The terrorists were searching for a movie director who hated America. Searching for a director who hates America? This won't be hard, all American directors hate America. Hollywood is full of them!

(Well, there is David Zucker, Stranger in a strange land: A conservative in Hollywood.)

Christians were to blame for all the world's ills too in some spoof bits, showing how Christians are the only group in a tolerant society that liberals won't tolerate. (How true.) 

There were times the movie was hokey and moved a little slowly, but overall, the message was very good. Zucker even got in a dig at the snobbish, anti-American stance of college educators. How they are really still stuck in the anti-American, anti-war era of 1968. (This is really true. Most teachers on college campuses, especially in the subjects of sociology and history are spewing anti-American garbage ala Professor Bill Ayers (terrorist) at University of Chicago...but that is another blog.)

There were other times when the movie was very touching and made you appreciate the sacrifice others have made for our country to give us the gift of Democracy and freedom.

The PG-13 rating was well earned. While there were no granddaddies of swear words, if you catch my drift, there were the usual crude substitutions for manure and calling people another word for donkey. There also was a situation that would imply gay sex in a men's room, but it wasn't. Some children wouldn't get the implication. Another caution was there was some violence that was treated as humorous. Overall, most teens are exposed to this type of thing in movies all the time if you allow them to see PG-13 fare.

Since the overall message is good and gives an appreciation of history, I would still recommend the movie for teens. BUT, if you are in doubt, I would advise that you see it yourself first before allowing your teen to see it.

An American Carol came in 9th in box office terms, taking in $3.7 million. Best of all, it beat out Bill Maher's anti Christian movie!  

So, how did a liberal Democrat become a conservative? The Weekly Standard's Hollywood Takes on the Left walks you through Director David Zucker's political journey. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

On the news yesterday, I heard that John McCain and Sarah Palin will go to La Crosse Friday after their stop in Waukesha on Thursday. I think that is a good move. McCain will also be in Mosinee, WI, and Palin in Wilmington, OH later on Thursday.

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin said she wanted to go back to Michigan--she wasn't giving up on that state. That is good news for Michigan since The GOP in Michigan is still trying to "boost efforts" in the state.

I just heard about this PAC group, Our Country Deserves Better. They aren't willing to give up Michigan either. In fact, they are holding a 2 day web-a-thon to raise $500,000 by Thursday morning. In their first day, they raised a little over half of it according to their CONTRIBUTE NOW page.

Their logic is that if McCain just gives Michigan up, Obama won't need to spend any time or money there.

The 17 electoral votes will be lost to Obama/Biden.  Down-ballot races of candidates sympathetic to McCain will lose.  And Obama will be able to take money he had intended for Michigan and put it into other swing states such as Nevada, Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Missouri.

We might be focusing on the presidential race, but the president isn't the only candidate on the ballot. The entire House is on the Nov. 4th ballot, and 36 Senators are up for election too.

The thought of an unbridled Democrat majority House and Democrat majority Senate with a Democrat President is enough motivation for citizens to shell out $254,000 (so far) to help Michigan. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

What if I had a cure for Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes, or paralysis caused by spinal cord injury? All you would have to do is take an infant, remove all of its stem cells (sorry, the infant dies), tweak the cells, and transfer them to the ill patient.

Would you do it?

Most people wouldn't and would consider that murderous act barbaric. Yet those who favor embryonic stem cell research are in effect doing just that in the eyes of those who are pro-life.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then even using an embryo for research purposes is an act of murder.

President Bush has been adamantly opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for that very reason. (The Bush stance only opposes federal funding--not outlawing private research.)

McCain has voted for existing embryonic stem cell research in the past, but those measures failed. John McCain is opposed to embryonic stem cell research that would encourage growing embryos for the purpose. The Republican platform is against any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but THEY ALL, BUSH, McCAIN, and PALIN FAVOR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH! 

The outrageous Obama radio ad that distorts McCain's position includes a woman talking about her diabetic daughter. She says that John McCain is opposed to stem cell research. It goes on to say that medical research, benefiting millions, shouldn't be held hostage by a few.

So why do the Democrats constantly tell people that McCain and Bush are against stem cell research?

Two reasons: One, they want to portray the Republicans as heartless cretins, too stuck on religious principal to care about the ill. Two, if the Democrats can get people to buy into the necessity for embryonic stem cell research, it will dilute the anti-abortion/sanctity of life position of conservatives.

The issue should become moot in time, according to CNS, which is consistent with what I have seen reported*,

Stem cells obtained from adult humans have been widely acclaimed for their ability to promote human health and stave off dreaded illnesses. Stem cells obtained from human embryos, however, have not been successful in yielding results in scientific research thus far.

It will be wonderful to cure some of these diseases in the near future. McCain and Palin are in favor of curing these diseases too, just not at the expense of another individual! Remember that next time you hear an Obama ad saying they aren't.

PS Nick Reed (substitute for Vicki McKenna) called the mother, Jody Montgomery, from the ad to ask if she knew she was telling a complete lie. Turns out, this is the same woman who used the same type ad against Mark Green 2 years ago. Listen to the podcast from the 10am hour on Sept. 24th to hear more.

*Nick Reed just name some of the 73 benefits to human patients obtained from ADULT stem cell research on the same radio program. He continued the stem cell discussion into the 11am hour. He mentioned the 73 benefits at about 11:20am if you were listening to the podcast. See Stemcellresearch.org 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The phrase so close, yet so far away was never more true for me than yesterday. A friend asked on Thursday night if I was interested in going to Cedarburg Friday, That was just the nudge I needed. I said, yes!

Neither of us had ever gone to one of these campaign stops before, so we were greenhorns. We did manage to get there by 8am, but we could see by the crowd, that was not nearly early enough.

After waiting for a long time to get through security, something I should have anticipated, we finally were allowed through. Unfortunately, we were on the north side of the podium--the wrong side of town. We did have an excellent view of the backside of the press bleachers though! (Photo courtesy of another attendee.)

From JSOnline: Police said there were at least 12,500 who were admitted to the secure area and another 5,000 who did not fit.

The rumor was that when this Cedarburg stop was originally set up, they were expecting a crowd of 2,000. I think there is little doubt about what Palin and the convention has done for the ticket. (I think many people saw a new side to John McCain through his convention speech.)

Whitney Clapper sang the National Anthem and did an outstanding job. Dr. Ferry from Concorida University provided the invocation--not just some wimpy little generic prayer, this was a meaty prayer. (I should have taken notes but my eyes were closed.)

We could hear the speakers fine; we just could not see a thing. While Congressman Sensenbrenner was speaking, the guards permitted a crowd of attendees to flood the street, allowing them to get much closer to the bleachers, while we were kept back on the sidewalks. Many started booing near me. Poor Sensenbrenner! The boos quickly died down when the sidewalk crowd realized the street group could see no better.

We decided that we might as well leave our spot to see if we could get a better glimpse on the south side of the crowd. The guard informed us we would have to go through security on the other end of main street if we left, but we really did not care. It was pretty worthless where we were.

It was an interesting walk down the alley to the east of the main street.We could see the news vans,.sign distribution area (picked up a few), campaign "stuff" vendors, and of course...protesters.

 
I purchased a fabulous pin, featuring Lincoln (birth of the Republican party), Reagan, and now McCain.

We then headed to Tomasos Pizza where we could watch the coverage on the TV screen. There we met William, who told us he was right up front! He showed us some of his pictures on his camera and promised to email. (Many on the slideshow are courtesy of Bill and another friend.)
                                                                                                       Other people on the street had various signs, McCain face cut-outs, and some had elephant shaped auction paddle style signs. The paddles we learned were courtesy of John Murphy (left) of Mequon's BetterBidders auction paddle company. We met up with him later and he told us a similar pair, from the 2004 election, now resides in the Smithsonian! 

The crowd was very up-beat, despite 1,000s being turned away. People were friendly and ready to share or trade their McCain/Palin goodies. Even though we were not able to see the candidates for ourself, it still was a fun experience. The weather was great and the mood even better.

No doubt about it, the Republicans are energized!

Bits and pieces

A funny tid-bit:

"After speaking, McCain and Palin ducked into The Chocolate Factory to greet people. "I've got to get the moose tracks, please," said Palin at the counter. "Moose tracks, you know, near and dear to my heart. I can't go wrong with it." She was given a waffle cone with a giant scoop. McCain ordered sorbet; Cindy McCain ordered a brownie.

Interesting note: When an important person is in town, such as the president of the United States or presidential candidate, don't count on going to Froedert hospital's emergency room without calling first. Friday they diverted patients to other hospitals while the VIP were in town. (Learned this by experience.)

What to, and not to bring: My advice is that it is best to think of these events in terms of airport security. While waiting in line to pass through security, we heard you needed ID (didn't.) Also heard umbrellas were a no-no, so were American flags if the stick was too long. I think beverages were out too. Weapons of course are verboten and I think a scissors, letter opener, pocket knife, or anything else the guard might think could be used to hurt someone. The guard next to us was ripping the flags off the sticks and keeping the sticks, but my guard let me take mine in. My very short collapsible umbrella was OK (they did feel it though.)