How many times do you hear that our children are so much smarter these days or that our high school and college age students are so advanced compared to our school days?

I hear it a lot, but frankly, I don't see it. Yes, they know how to use technology, but it seems most young to middle age adults are pretty ignorant when it comes to civics, economics, and history.

If you watched any of the interviews on why voters chose their candidates on Nov. 4th, you will notice how woefully ignorant the masses are when it comes to civics and politics. RedState posted some of these interviews. Most didn't even know who Barney Frank, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi were!

The Red State interviews confirmed what USA Today concluded in Americans don't know civics: (My emphasis throughout)

From high-school dropouts to college graduates to elected officials, Americans are "alarmingly uninformed"USA's history, founding principals and economy about the — knowledge needed to participate wisely in civic life, says a report scheduled to be released Thursday.

..."Without knowledge of your country's history, key texts and institutions, you don't have a frame of reference to judge the politics and policies of today," says Richard Brake, head of the institute's American Civic Literacy Program.

You can take the same Our Fading Heritage Civics Quiz, and see how you compare to other average Americans. (I took it too--my score is at the bottom of this posting.) 

There was some correlation between age and higher education, but even there, the scores were still abysmal: (My emphasis)

[Across all economic and education levels] 71% earn an F; the average score was 49%. Ages 25 to 34 had an average score of 46%; ages 45 to 64 had a 52% average. Of 164 respondents who say they have held elected office, 44% was average.

Those with bachelor's degrees had an average score of 57% vs. 44% for those with a high-school diploma. The average score for advanced degree-holders inches up to 65%, or a D.

This correlation came as no surprise to me: 

Civic knowledge declines in proportion to time spent using passive media, such as TV. Reading and talking about history and current events, using the Internet and being involved in political activities has a positive effect.

I took it and scored 93.94% or 31 out of 33 correct. Most questions I knew without the multiple choice, a few I only answered correctly because of homeschooling (recently taught high school civics), some were educated guesses.

Neither of my parents went to college, although my mother went to a one year secretarial school. My father had to quit school in the 8th grade to go to work during the great depression. Yet they and others from their generation possessed a core knowledge of these necessary subjects that most younger American adults lack. They studied our nation's "key texts" in school.

Sadly, most people today do not know anything about our government or economy. If we ever want elections to be about substance instead of persona and emotion, we will have to teach the basic civics, history and economics classes again. Of course that is only if we want to ensure we have an electorate that votes intelligently.

Are you brave enough to take the basic history quiz too? Questions and how students scored in '07

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 would happen if all states awarded their electoral votes, congressional district by congressional district, as Maine and Nebraska do? Nebraska was a red state in 2008 with the exception of its 2nd district, which went for Obama and contributed its 1 electoral college vote for him.

Look at the 2008 map. I found it interesting to see the distribution of counties going for McCain and Obama--especially in swing states that went for Obama. America Is Still a 'Red' Nation: Election Map 2008: 

Click map for larger version 

Click here for the 2004 map

Click here for the 2000 map

The New England states in the northeast are the bluest, Wisconsin would be next. Even California and New York state are redder that we are!

Of course we aren't going to see a congressional district by congressional district distribution of electoral college votes. In fact, there are liberals who would like to see the electoral college eliminated all together. That would be a mistake. The electoral college was set up in 1787 to prevent areas of dense population from deciding elections. It was an effort to give the entire country a voice in choosing our leaders. 

If someone is relocating, either within a state or across country, checking the red/blue congressional district maps might be helpful in deciding which state or district to choose. If I ever move, I want to see RED! 

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: 

So much for tolerance. A Radical Michigan Gay Group Attacks Christian Church Service on Sunday. Yup, those gay people that Christians are to be so tolerant of, acted in a very intolerant, disgusting way during a church service.

On Sunday, November 9, 2008 Michigan liberals sat peacefully through announcements, worship and prayer for the sick, our nation and our President-elect before staging a coordinated, disgusting and repulsive attack on worshipers and the broader concept of the church itself at Lansing's Mount Hope Church.

...Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Don't expect the mainstream media to pick up on this.

Right Michigan reported more details about the attack: (My emphasis)

The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did).  And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow.  According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a "journalist" from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties.  We'll see what he files and what his editors see fit to print.

...The church's response?  After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding.

I am thankful that this group of believers acted in a Christian way. Their actions speak volumes about their beliefs and character.

In case you haven't noticed, Christians are fast becoming the only group where intolerance is allowed. We better wake up.

Side note: Any media bias here? It is interesting that an Obama victory at 52.7% (McCain 46%) is called a landslide or mandate, but California's Proposition 8, which would outlaw gay marriage, passed by 52.4% (No 47.6%) and was called a narrow margin.

White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA:  Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban. [Hazmat crew determined it wasn't toxic.]

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: 

When I first heard about that McCain insider who told tales out of school about Sarah Palin, I immediately thought those criticisms smacked of sour grapes and jealousy. Imagine a true McCain, cross the isle, centrist campaign worker now having to help the novice, but igniter of the conservative base upstart. No matter that she was happily minding her own business in Alaska when she got the tap for VP. She clearly energized the McCain campaign, and that can create jealousy.

One of the more scathing comments was that Palin did not know Africa was a continent. I immediately thought, well, 52% of Americans just elected a president who does not know America has 50, not 57 states or that Pakistan is an ally. Besides that, it could just be a slip of the tongue--much like we say Iran when meaning Iraq. We know the difference but misstate it. 

Now it seems the "insider" M. Eisenstadt, who confessed to be the source for Carl Cameron's story, might not even exist. Martin Eisenstadt Tricks News Orgs On Being Source of Palin Dirt:

But it's not at all clear that Eisenstadt exists. William K. Wolfrum of Shakespeare's Sister, who was suckered by Eisenstadt during the campaign, did some digging and concluded, "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. M. Thomas Eisenstadt is a hoax."

To be clear, none of this means the Africa story is false -- just that it didn't come from this source. Huffington Post has been told on background that Martin Eisenstadt was not one of Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron's sources.

Who knows who was the real source of Cameron's story. If we ever find him/her, there will probably be a bunch of sour grapes in their hand. But as for the confusion over Africa as a country or continent, was it just something like this? Chris Matthews Calls Africa a 'Country':

Matthews made his mistake in the course of posing a question to Larry Persily, a former member of Palin's gubernatorial staff. 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I've got to go to Larry first. You've got to answer this question, sir.  Is this person unaware of basic grade-school information, like, Africa is a country of 57-or-so countries, it is not a country, it's a continent? South Africa is a country, not a region. 

Clearly, this was no more than a slip of the Matthews tongue [we wouldn't want to unfairly undermine Chris's incipient Senate run].  After calling Africa a country, he went on to call it a continent.  But it ironically illustrates how the alleged Palin knowledge gap might well have been nothing more than a similar slip. (My emphasis here)

Before the camera cuts away, Persily can be seen smiling wryly at Chris's miscue.  For the record, Persily answered that he didn't think it was plausible that Gov. Palin is unaware of the kind of information Matthews described.

Speaking of mistakes . . . note Matthews's reference to Africa's 57 countries.  Could that be what Barack Obama had in mind when he spoke of  having visited 57 states in the USA?

I had not thought of that 57 African country angle, but it fits. Should we make a big thing about that? (No)

It is a general principle of mine that insiders should not divulge confidences and things taken out of context--especially when it damages a greater cause: the Republican's future.

The candidates and staff are under tremendous pressure and grueling schedules during a campaign. If we want good people to run for office, they need to at least know they will not be attacked by their own before or after the campaign.

A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence:  "...Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on." 

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: 

It is difficult for me to square last night's election results with the fact that when polled, more people consider themselves conservatives than the 1 in 5 who say they are liberal.  But the results are the results.

Senator Barack Obama won, but considering the amount of money he spent, it was not the huge landslide some expected in the popular vote.

Republicans managed to keep Kentucky's Mitch McConnel and it looks like Democrats failed to obtain their Senate super filibuster proof majority.

Conservative Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Ryan easily won reelection to the US House of Representatives. Unfortunately, John Gard did not defeat Steven Kagen.

You can check for local results by selecting different categories here.  

California's Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage looks like it will pass: Yes - 52%, No 48%, with 95% precincts in. But it still has not been called. On the darker side, Washington State voted to approve Doctor Assisted Suicide.

The State Republicans failed to maintain the majority in the Assembly. So for the first time since Governor Tony Earl Democrats will control both houses in the state. Can you say higher taxes? Healthy Wisconsin and the hospital tax are just 2 that will be coming our way. There is some talk that President Obama might whisk Jim Doyle off to Washington, but then we are stuck with liberal Barbara Lawton.

State Assembly Representative Leah Vukmir and Rich Zipperer will go back to the Assembly. Republican Dan Knodl will go for the first time. Republican Yash Wadhwa did not make it for Democrat Wasserman's vacated seat.

The Alberta Darling (R) vs. Sheldon Wasserman (D) State Senate race is very close. Darling is leading but the absentee ballots have not been counted yet. 

Germantown voted down their referendums. It will be interesting to see what their school board does about all-day kindergarten now. 

Go figure, Milwaukee voted to increase their sales tax and provide mandatory sick days. What entrepreneur will want to stay there? Will that help Brookfield gain new businesses? Maybe. If the Milwaukee County sales tax increase is adopted, Brookfield Square shopping just became more appealing than Mayfair or Bay Shore's. 

I have a few more things to talk about regarding the election and then it's time to move on. I don't think any of us will be missing the robo-calls, TV, and radio ads!

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: 

Of course the BIG deal of the day is the presidential race and Electoral College count. Will Obama win big? McCain squeak by? Will we even know today or this week?

What will happen with the majorities in the House and Senate. It is difficult for me to understand how a Congress with the lowest approval rating can gain more seats for the party in power, but I have given up trying to understand people's irrational choices. 

If California's Proposition 8 passes, it would eliminate gay marriage. If it fails, gay marriage stays.

In Wisconsin I am watching the Assembly races. I think Leah Vukmir is safe. Hope Rich Zipperer does well too. Dan Knodl from the 24th Assembly District will attract my attention--remember the endorsement problems? Will Republicans still support him?

I'll also be watching Yash Wadhwa's race--not just because I want another Republican seat in the Assembly, but because I like his personal story.

In the State Senate, I am pulling for John Gard* and Alberta Darling. 

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner should be a sure thing, but Paul Ryan? I hope voters have the good sense to send him back to Washington.

As for Germantown's $22.5 million Elementary School Referendum (some tech and safety upgrades included too?), will voters there buy the Brooklyn Bridge, oh, excuse me, the idea that a new school won't really cost them because the state aid will make up for the added bonding expense?

Supporters of Tuesday's main referendum measure argue that the increase in property taxes needed to pay for the borrowing would be offset by additional state aid collected as a result of higher enrollment.

Remember the Germantown School Board discontinued full-day kindergarten next year because of space constraints. If this referendum does not pass, what will they do then? Go to all half-day or work out some other solution?

It should be interesting!

*Correction, John Gard ran for Congress not State Senate 

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: 

Well, today is the day. The day we go vote for president and our other government representatives*. How will you choose which one?

Will your choice be based on what the candidate promises to give and do for you? Or will the candidate's platform and character influence your choice?

President Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is on the side of the right. But it is my constant prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

I am just speaking to people of faith here.

The Lord cannot bless a nation that embraces a culture of death concerning the unborn. He cannot bless a nation that embraces homosexual marriage. These 2 issues are clearly against His teachings in the Bible.

You cannot pick and choose which of God's principles you will obey and which you will disregard. If you do, you are in effect creating your own god, and putting that god before Him. That act violates the 1st commandment: Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me." We are created in His image, we don't create a god in ours.

On Sunday, our pastor challenged us to let God shape our thinking when we vote. As a Christian**, your vote represents God's voice to the government.

I am choosing the party that supports a culture of life and believes marriage between a man and a woman should be protected. That party's candidates are John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Is McCain perfect? Everything I could ever ask for in a candidate? No. But he does represent my Christian values. He also happens to support my American values.

"...choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods [idols] which your fathers served that were on the other side of the river... But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

*I am also voting for Jim Sensenbrenner and Leah Vukmir.

**This statement was addressed to a Christian congregation. No candidate was endorsed.
 

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: 

At the last debate, John McCain stated his strong opposition to the horrible procedure, Partial Birth Abortion. Barack Obama, knowing his pro-abortion stance at the Saddleback Forum hurt him, must have decided that in a national venue such as a televised debate, he could not publicly support Partial Birth Abortion. So Obama said he was "completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life..." 

Yet he told Planned Parenthood he would make signing the Freedom of Choice Act that would reinstate Partial Birth Abortion, his top priority. "No, kick-starting the economy is not his number one goal and health care won't be top on his list of priorities." Obama said,

On this fundamental issue, I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield.

What is Partial Birth Abortion? It's a barbaric procedure in which doctors induce a late term pregnant woman to actually give birth. But before the baby is totally delivered, doctors puncture the child's brain to kill it. If any other culture did that we would be outraged. (Whether the mother's life is at risk or not, she still needs to deliver the child. What the doctor does to that child has no effect on the mother's health.)

Partial Birth Abortion was "banned by the Congress and signed by the President in 2003." The Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2007. Even pro-abortion Sen. Daniel Moynihan, Democrat from N.Y. voted to ban partial-birth abortion. He said the practice was "too close to infanticide." 

According to the Family Research Council, here is what the Freedom of Choice Act will do:

All sides in the abortion fight agree, if FOCA were to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by a pro-abortion President, it would, among other effects, provide for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, grant abortionists immunity from legal action, allow abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and deny health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.

The other procedure, Late Term Labor Induced Abortion, occurs in the 2nd trimester, earlier in the pregnancy but still sometimes produces a living child.

These babies were the subject of the bill Obama voted against in the Illinois State Senate. It was the same as the identically worded Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which passed the US Senate unanimously). Obama has tried to say the State version was not the same as the Federal version, but this is not true. In August 2008, "His campaign ...acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate..."

Nurse Jill Stanek talked to Bill O'Reilly about her experience with born alive aborted babies at Christ Hospital in Illinois. Her account stunned O'Reilly.

Obama tried to wiggle out of the question, "...at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" at the Saddleback Forum by saying, "answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

Well, even a janitor (someone below Obama's pay grade) could tell you an aborted, yet alive, infant discarded in a "soiled utility room" was living and entitled to better treatment. 

Click to view the video

Related info: Catholic Church has made no exception regarding abortion since ancient times, & Priests for Life 

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 are all growing weary of the campaign ads, but there is one ad I love to hear. It is Yash Wadhwa's radio ad for Wisconsin's 22nd Assembly district.

Yash tells how he came to America in 1969 with just $5 in his pocket and a dream in his heart. His story reminded me of my own foreign born grandfather who came here at age 13.

Yash says, I believe in this country you could do anything you were willing to work for, and it was true. From a graduate student to an owner of a consulting engineering company, I have been blessed to live the American dream...

This is the best country on earth. When I became a citizen in 1982 it was the happiest day in my life. 

This country has given me so much I am eager to go to Madison and give something back. 

Listen to his complete ad: Yash Wadhwa and the American Dream

He gets it. Work hard and succeed. It worked for him, it can work for anyone.

I spoke at length with a Pakistani woman at a party last week. She has lived all over the world, and she appreciated what America had to offer too. No one else works (or plays) as hard as you do here in America, she said.  

My sister-in-law lived in Canada for a year. She often commented how people were so different up there. We tend to think we could easily adapt to life in Canada. Not so, she said. They don't possess that same sense of entrepreneurship. There is none of that go get 'em attitude up there. They wait instead for the government to do for them what they could do for themselves.

I agree with Yash. We are privileged to live in the best country on earth. It breaks my heart that the front runner in this presidential race doesn't agree. Worse yet, Obama wants to copy the failed economic policies of socialist countries and restrict the freedoms we take for granted.

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: 

Obama's I'm against same-sex marriage but against ending it's practice via California's Proposition 8 rings about as true as Wisconsin State Senator Jim Sullivan saying, he is for Voter ID but not for a state constitutional amendment referendum question requiring Voter ID. It's doublespeak for I don't want the current situation to change, but don't want to be on the record as saying so.

Obama Says He is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif.:

Barack Obama's nuanced position on same-sex marriage is on full display in an MTV interview which is set to air on Monday.

Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage." 

At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state's Supreme Court recently recognized.

That's their Obama! Trying to be on both sides of the fence.

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: 

It amazes me that the question is still out there: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be Vice President or God forbid, President? Considering Senator Barack Obama has so little experience and such questionable ideas and connections, the question is laughable.

In the race for the White House, Governors traditionally are hands down the favorite against Senators or Congressmen. Since Governors must prepare a budget, run their state, and are commanders of their National Guard, it is thought that their executive experience translates more completely to the presidency than experience in other branches of government.

John F. Kennedy was the most recent Senator to win the White House. All elected Presidents since were either former Vice Presidents or Governors. But here is a little known fact: Not all governors are created equal--equal in power that is. 

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece called, Running Alaska. It explained the differences in governing responsibilities between the states. Some states have governors that take on more of a P.R. roll vs. governors who run the whole show. (Mayors are much the same. Some just do ribbon cuttings etc. while the Administrative Director does the real work. I'll let you decide where Mayor Speaker and Director of Administration Dean Marquardt's responsibilities fall.)

The article explained that Thad Beyle, a political scientist at University of North Carolina actually rates each state's governor on "potential length of service, budgetary and appointment authority, veto power and other factors." He has been doing this for 20 years, the article stated.

At one time there was talk of amending the Constitution so that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president. (He is a citizen but not natural born citizen.)  Now that California is deeply in debt, some might be glad that idea fizzled.

Another former actor and former governor of California, Ronald Reagan, became one of our most beloved presidents. California is a large state. It certainly must rank high on the Beyle scale?  

Nope. On Beyle's scale, 5 being the highest, California ranks 3.2. "California may be the nation's most populous state, but its Governor rates as below-average (3.2) in executive authority. This may account in part for Arnold Schwarzenegger's poor legislative track record." 

How about Howard Dean? He was a front runner in the last go round until he had that whooping up moment. Early on it was thought Dean would win the Democratic nomination. Howard Dean was governor of Vermont. There was no discussion of Dean being unqualified for the White House.

So how does Vermont's governor rate?  The lowest of all of the states, 2.5. In Vermont, the governor is really a "figurehead when compared to [you guessed it] Mrs. Palin."

Only one state rates higher than Alaska and that is Massachusetts. (That would be former Governor Mitt Romney's state.)

And what about Alaska? Well, it's a big state with big responsibilities--"one of the country's most powerful." Alaska ranks 4.1. "The national average is 3.5." Maryland, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia also rank at 4.1.

In Alaska, the Governor has line-item veto power over the budget and can only be overridden by a three-quarter majority of the Legislature.

In 1992, the year Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was elected President, his state budget was $2 billion and among the smallest in the country. Compared to that, Sarah Palin is an executive giant. [Alaska's budget is $12 million with 16,000 full time state employees.]

So can we stop asking the question?

Voter's* will decide on Tuesday and either she will be the Vice President or go back to being Governor of Alaska. In any event, in 2012, she will have 4 more years under her belt. If she decides to run again, it will be difficult to deny that the questioner's bias is showing if the question is asked again.

*Some voters have Palin/McCain signs and bumper stickers! 

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: