Liars, Cheats and Thieves…But At Least They’re Proud of Themselves!

BY PAUL E. SCATES

The good Education of Youth has been esteemed by wise Men in all Ages, as the surest Foundation of the Happiness both of private Families and of Common-wealths. Almost all Governments have therefore made it a principal Object of their Attention, to establish and endow with proper Revenues, such Seminaries of Learning, as might supply the succeeding Age with Men qualified to serve the Publick with Honour to themselves, and to their Country. -- Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749

Old Ben must be spinning in his grave. You see, for the past several decades those who run the educational establishment have churned out graduates who were indoctrinated with the idea that self-esteem is in no way tied to knowledge, performance or any other objective standard. Thus you get young adults who can’t write a paragraph or even speak a full sentence that is understandable except by others equally ignorant of English grammar and syntax. Think: text messaging, emoticons, stylized misspellings, etc.

In their misguided efforts to provide our youth with self-confidence, they have abandoned the traditional method of linking academic performance and achievement as the source of pride and self-esteem in favor of the “fog up a mirror” method. Haven’t heard of that method? It goes something like this: if you are breathing (determined by holding a mirror up to your nostrils; if your breath fogs up the mirror, it proves you’re alive), then you’re “special,” a “unique individual” who should be very proud of yourself, regardless of how you behave, what you know or understand, what you’re able to do, how you treat others, etc.

No performance standards, of course, for those are oppressive and exclusionary; can you imagine the damage to tender psyches that is involved if a child scores poorly on test, or (gasp!) even fails? To prevent such traumatic interruptions in their development, we have pass/fail grading, self-directed learning and individualized learning plans. You know, to accommodate the “unique learning styles” of each individual student.

One result of this approach, of course, is the rejection by young people of any and all standards. After all, if they’re told and shown repeatedly that it’s their individual opinion, belief and understanding that is most important, and that objective standards are arbitrary, meaningless rules, often based on bias (racial, cultural, gender, sexual orientation, et al), then challenging job performance standards, for example, or DMV requirements, traditional standards of attire, public behavior, language, etc., is a natural outcome.

Moral standards, too, such as character, integrity and honesty, are easily rejected as oppressive rules imposed by “dead, old white men” that no longer have “relevance.” That relevance, of course, is totally subjective, and each person determines for himself/herself if they want to subject themselves to such concepts. In the wholesale abandonment of religious beliefs by young people around the time they go off to college we can see the true impact of this radical individualism. When you consider that our Founders expressly stated that our democratic republic is fit only for “a moral and religious people,” the impact of that individualism is frighteningly apparent.

But is there any real proof that our young people are straying from traditional moral beliefs? According to the non-profit Josephson Institute, there’s plenty. For several years now they’ve taken a survey of high school kids about lying, cheating and stealing, and the decline of traditional moral standards is readily apparent in the responses. In their 2008 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth, the Institute said that responses from almost 30,000 teenagers “reveal entrenched habits of dishonesty for the workforce of the future.”

The responses from our next generation’s politicians, teachers, cops and corporate executives should alarm you. Overall, 30% of students admitted to stealing from a store during the past year, a two percent increase from 2006. Cheating in school is rampant, according to the survey, and continues to get worse: 64% said they had cheated on tests, an increase of four percent since 2006. Thirty-eight percent admitted to cheating two or more times.

The responses about lying are even worse: 83% of public school and private religious school students admitted to lying to their parents about something significant (78% of those attending independent non-religious schools admitted to lying).

"As bad as these numbers are,” the surveyors warned, “it appears they understate the level of dishonesty exhibited by America’s youth,” since more than a fourth of the students (26 percent) admitted they had lied on at least one or two of the survey questions! (What, you’re surprised?)

The most disturbing part of the survey, however, is that “despite these high levels of dishonesty, these kids have a high self-image when it comes to ethics.” Seventy-seven percent of the students surveyed said that when it comes to doing what is right, “I am better than most people I know.” And 93% of the students indicated satisfaction with their own character and ethics!

In the 50s and even into the 60s, our schools were preparing America’s youth not only to think and reason, but also to recognize the benefits to self and society of moral and behavioral standards developed through the experience of thousands of years of human history. However, in less than four decades the liberal/socialist educational establishment has succeeded in destroying those standards in the minds of many young Americans.

Franklin said it is the principle object of almost all governments to endow and support schools in order to “…supply the succeeding Age with Men qualified to serve the Publick with Honour to themselves, and to their Country.” Qualified? Serve? Honor? Only if everyone in the past three generations are planning to pursue careers in politics, where those words apparently have terribly different meanings than they hold for ordinary Americans.

Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.

New Poll: McCain Voters Knew More About Candidates Than Obama Voters

You might remember that a few weeks ago a video put together by John Zielger at HowObamaGotElected.com came out which set the liberals howling with rage.

The video showed interviews with 12 people who were existing the polls after having voted for Barack Obama. In the video, we sadly see that the Obama voters knew all the media spin on Sarah Palin (none of which was accurate), but new none of the very real detractors about Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The point Zielger was illustrating wasn't so much the ignorance of the average Obama voter, but that the "mainstream" media had fed Americans a truck-load of propaganda making the McCain-Palin ticket look bad while sanitizing coverage of Obama and Biden of anything negative.

The polling firm Zogby International also released a poll commissioned by Ziegler which found similar results.

Now, as you see in the video below, Ziegler has done what many wounded liberals howled that he should do: check out the McCain voters.

While the knowledge of the average McCain voter was woefully inadequate also...it was still far better than the Obama voters.

Some of the results posted at HowObamaGotElected.com:

Wilson Research Poll

The 12 "Zogby" questions were duplicated, one on the Keating scandal was added for extra balance. The results from Obama voters were virtually IDENTICAL in both polls.

Here are the highlights:

35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.

Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.

Those that got "congressional control" correct voted 56-43 for McCain.

Those that got "congressional control" wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.

The results also show more information about the knowledge level of the voters based on what news sources they relied on for information during the election.

Our right to vote is of profound importance and should be exercised with the greatest of responsibility. That means each voter should take the time to learn about the candidates and the issues on both sides in order to cast their vote responsibly.

In aggregate, our vote affects the whole country, along with our safety, welfare, and the moral fiber of our nation. Voting should never be done lightly, casually, or ignorantly. Too much is riding on it.

We'll soon begin finding out what a vote based on profound ignorance has wrought the people of the United States.

Americans Dismally Fail Civic Knowledge Test

Elected officials score worse than citizens

A couple of weeks ago the Intercollegiate Studies Institute released a disturbing report which found that more than twice as many Americans knew facts about "American Idol" as knew facts about the Gettysburg Address.

According to CNS News,

More than 2,000 people were administered a 33-question test this Spring on American history and our political and economic institutions. Of them, 71 percent -- college and non-college educated alike – got a failing mark, ISI’s Josiah Bunting III said, presenting the study at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Thursday.

The CNS News article also says

Less than half of Americans can name all three branches of government. -- Only 27 percent of Americans know that the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from establishing an official religion in the U.S.-- 54 percent do not know that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president.

As bad as the average person did, sadly politicians scored lower than the general public.

Seventy-nine (79) percent of elected officeholders did not know that the Bill of Rights expressly forbids the government establishment of an official religion.-- A large number (43 percent) of politicians did not know what the Electoral College does.

The results of this survey go a long way in explaining not only the mind-boggling ignorance seen every day on the internet, but help explain how our nation's government has gotten so far off its Constitutional track and into a wilderness that by design it never should have gone.

Darryl DeMarzio, an assistant professor in the education department at the University of Scranton says a philosophy called "constructivism" bears much of the blame for this sad state of civic ignorance.

"That’s the idea that knowledge is not something that teachers possess and give to students or teach students," DeMarzio told CNSNews.com. "Rather, knowledge is a process in which students construct meaning for themselves. "So a historical question in a history class today is not, ‘Who were the major political participants of World War II?’ But it’s ‘What do you think of World War II?’ or ‘What might we learn from World War II?’ Think for yourself. Construct your own knowledge, your own meaning out of this."

He also blames political correctness in education which supersedes fact.

The overall score of the over 2,000 people who took the 33-question test was 49%, a failing grade in any school. While none of the demographic groups listed in the major findings achieved a passing score, some groups did notably better than others.

For instance, in the income demographic, those making $75K-$100K and $100K+ scored 55, with the score dropping with each successive income group, to a low of 40% for the <$30K group.

By party, Republicans and Independents scored highest at 52%, with Democrats the lowest at 45%.

Interestingly, by ideology, "moderates" did the best at 51%, with liberals next at 49% and conservatives at 48%.

Those with military service out-scored those who had never served 51-48%.

Scored by church attendance, the "seldom" attenders scored best at 51%, followed by "never" at 50%, with the "once a week" and "more than once a week" bringing up the rear at 48%.

Comparisons between citizens and elected officials in specific areas of knowledge also yielded interesting contrasts.

Citizens scored 83% on the Declaration of Independence while officials scored 69.78%.

For the definition of free enterprise, citizens were again the highest 41-32%.

Citizens understood the electoral college better than elected officials 66-57%.

The Scopes Monkey Trial, dealing with evolution, was understood better by citizens (67.76%) than by elected officials (59.21%).

Abortion was also understood better by citizens (50.77%) than elected officials (43.94%).

Some other areas, with citizen scores first and then elected official scores:

- First Amendment Freedoms 79.58 73.32

- FDR and the Supreme Court 25.07 19.24

- Taxes and Government Spending 27.7 22.12

- Free Markets vs. Centralized Planning 16.25 10.71

- Action Prohibited by the Bill of Rights 26.41 21.24

- Source of phrase "a wall of separation" 18.92 15.07

- Powers of the Federal Government 75.01 72.69

- Definition of a Progressive Tax 51.26 49.97


Elected officials out-scored citizens in only four of the 33 areas:

- Definition of a Public Good 27.6 28.03

- Gettysburg Address 21.06 22.95

- Fiscal Policy for Economic Stimulus 36.07 39.93

- Lincoln–Douglas Debates 19.06 23.62

But again: notice that all these areas, no matter which group scored the best, all yielded pathetic results.

Of the 2,508 tested, only 272 achieved a passing grade. Only 11% passed the test. When we see how profoundly ignorant are both our elected officials and the people who elect them, it is no wonder that our government only resembles the U.S. Constitution in a few areas.

Those who settled and founded America understood the vital importance of a good education--not just holding a degree, but an education. They established fine institutions of learning such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and others...which have today degenerated into liberal institutions which dispense politically correct propaganda at the expense of genuine knowledge, and provide a degree in snobbery rather than equipping America's leaders to maintain a free republic.

You can take the test yourself here. Hopefully you do well. But if you do not, for the sake of our republic, educate yourself in the areas of your deficiency. In this day and age of public libraries, cheap books and the internet, there is no reason why a person cannot see to their own education, at least to a level which would make them a responsible citizen.

As for our country, we need to take this liberal preoccupation with politically correct pap and throw it in the trash can. We need to get back to basics and back to facts. We need to get back to teaching our American heritage instead of maligning it.

And as a society, we need to adjust our focus away from sports and American Idol and Britney Spears, to our freedom, our civic duty, lauding a good education over our pop-culture quotient.

Parents must take a more active interest in their children's education. They must also assume more responsibility to ensure that education is actually happening, and not blindly trust that the public education system is getting the job done. Parents need to take the time to teach their own children, talk with them about current events, tell them about how the world works, and quiz their children on a regular basis even while driving to appointments and such.

Karl Marx, the enemy of all that makes America great, once said "A people without a heritage are easily persuaded" (the implication here being that they are easily led astray). He understood better than we Americans do how important it is that we maintain a working knowledge of our heritage.

If we want to remain strong enough to protect ourselves and maintain the level of affluence we enjoy as Americans, we must take the time to understand our history, our heritage, and how our republic is supposed to work.

If we want to remain a free people, we must study our heritage and embrace it.

Mayflower Compact Poll Results

Last week's poll on the Mayflower Compact is now closed.

The poll/question read as follows:

According to the Mayflower Compact, what are two of the reasons the Pilgrims made their voyage?

Most of the choices provided were valid to some degree (except for the third one), but the Mayflower Compact specifically states the reasons why they undertook their voyage to the New World to establish a colony. The key was the opening clause: "According to the Mayflower Compact..."

This is how respondents answered (two choices were allowed):

- Religious freedom 74%
- For the glory of God 37%
- To start a theocracy 11%
- To escape an oppressive king 51%
- Advancement of the Christian faith 20%

Now, only those both ignorant and afraid of religious faith would give the third answer because it simply isn't true. Never has been, and isn't today.

Answers #1 and #4 have some truth to them, as the Pilgrims were indeed looking for an environment where they could worship as their conscience dictated--something difficult to do in Europe where most countries had official church/state unions that tended toward oppression.

But #2 and #5 were the answers I was looking for. The Mayflower Compact begins:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia..."

If our country is to survive, we desperately need to rediscover our history and our heritage.

As Karl Marx said, "A people without a heritage are easily persuaded." And that is exactly what those who want to turn our nation 180 degrees from its foundation want.

They want us utterly ignorant and misled about our nation's history. They want us to believe a lie about our nation's Christian foundation and heritage. And they are on the verge of succeeding. If we are ignorant of the noble ideals of our heritage--or worse yet, are led to believe a lie about our heritage--it is so much easier to lead us down a path the United States was never intended to go...a path that leads to destruction and damnation.

We are on the cusp of losing it all. We must reject the pop propaganda and take responsibility to educate ourselves on our heritage. And we must help educate other Americans with whom we come in contact.

Our heritage is not perfect (none are), but it is noble, and it is a blessing from God.

And it's worth fighting for. And I will fight for it. Will you?

Texas Requirement to Teach Weaknesses of Evolution Being Reviewed

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Nov. 20 2008 09:17 AM EST

The Texas Board of Education on Wednesday heard public arguments for and against a current science standard that requires students to be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

The State Board is looking to update its state science standards and will vote on new guidelines next spring. The hearing on Wednesday was open to public comments on the proposed revisions to the state's science curriculum.

The current science guidelines, known as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS, require that students be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories, including evolution.

The board is considering whether to retain the current mandate, change the language to say "strengths and limitations," or eliminate the reference altogether, as a review panel had recommended.

Despite being just three words long, the phrase has stirred up a heated debate among educators, parents, and interest groups.

Those who support retaining the decade-old reference say it provides students a balanced viewpoint on evolution and allows them a chance to come to their own conclusions.

Those who oppose keeping the current standard say the "weaknesses" language undermines evolution while opening the door for religious teachings like creationism in the classroom.

A majority of board members are in favor of retaining the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement. They dismiss concerns by critics who say the board's intent is to sneak religion into the classroom.

"There's no one on this board that is trying to inject intelligent design or creationism," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told the Houston Chronicle. "They are trying to whip up into a frenzy over something that is not going to happen. But by trying to remove strengths and weaknesses, yes, they will get a fight."

Around 90 people had signed up to testify before the board on Wednesday, The Associated Press reported.

Steven Schafersman with Texas Citizens for Science urged the board to remove the reference, saying, "Scientific theories are strong. They don't have weaknesses," according to AP.

Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Texas Free Market Foundation, wanted the reference to stay.

"This is just another attempt to stifle academic freedom and to ban any kind of free and open science inquiry on this issue," Saenz, who had planned to testify, told AP.

Critics of the reference say the "weaknesses" requirement harms science education. But Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a think tank on intelligent design, said the requirement actually helps academics.

"It's a facade to pretend that there are no scientific weaknesses of evolution, and not teaching the scientific weaknesses to students will prevent them from learning about the facts of biology, and it will harm their critical thinking skills," Luskin told the Chronicle.

A survey released last week of science professors from public and private universities in the state found that 95 percent of respondents said they want evolution to be the only theory of the origin of life taught in public schools. A vast majority of those surveyed also said students would be harmed if the state requires the teaching of the "weaknesses" of evolution.

Proponents of keeping the "strengths and weaknesses" language, however, have downplayed the survey, saying a "culture of intimidation" prevents scientists from voicing any objections to evolution. They also point out that it was conducted for Texas Freedom Network, an organization which has actively lobbied for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

"It’s a self-selecting survey," Luskin told the Star-Telegram. "There’s a well-documented culture of intimidation that makes scientists uncomfortable expressing their doubts about Darwinism. This just serves to reinforce that climate of intimidation."

The new science standards adopted by the board next year will remain in place for the next decade.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Repairing the Foundations of a Nation Under Assault, Part 2

Previously I discussed the need to rebuild America's foundation at the most basic level in order to save this "last best hope."

A majority of Americans have forgotten our historic roots of freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. It's not enough anymore just to point out the need for a return to traditional Americanism; too many people don't understand what that means and lack the capacity for analytical thought. We must go back to the basics and explain why traditional Americanism is good and why the modern trend toward socialism is bad. People in our self-centered culture must be educated as to "what's in it for them" before they can move on to acting and voting in a manner based on "what's in it for society" or better still "what's right."

We will need to educate our fellow Americans because the institutions which have historically done so--the institutions of education and journalism--have demonstrated they are no longer willing to do so. Traditional Americans must therefore work in and within those institutions to foster change. We must also engage our fellow Americans on a personal level--at work, at church, across the back yard fence, and at the ball game.

But educating and providing facts is still not enough. Fundamental change is needed in the hearts of the American people. Since leaving our roots, we have spawned generations who have not cultivated a moral compass. We will not return America to societal greatness unless we cultivate a strong moral compass in the people.

PART 1

People also no longer understand the relationship between private morality and public behavior. Since the days of Bill Clinton we've been told that it doesn't matter if someone is a scoundrel and dirtbag in their personal life; what matters is whether they're a good leader.

But we saw with Bill Clinton that his "private morality" or lack thereof dragged the nation through the mud hole of his depraved infidelity. We also saw him lie to the American people--not only about his unzipped fly but about policy issues--almost every time his mouth opened. He lied about seeing black churches burning in Arkansas, reducing the size of government (he gutted the military while bloating the bureaucracy), lied about reining in the welfare state (congressional Republicans did this), and he lied about reducing spending (again, congressional Republicans did this). It was almost impossible to keep up with his lies and lack of faithfulness to the people he was elected to serve.

And in the same way he was derelict in his duty to be faithful to his wife, he was derelict in his duty to protect the United States...

READ MORE...

Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected

The "How Obama Got Elected" Zombie Voters video has gone viral. I posted it late last evening and it burned up the internet overnight.

Hannity and Colmes also talked to the man, John Ziegler, who commissioned the Zogby poll and did the documentary video last night (see below).

John Ziegler said he would bet Alan Colmes the money he spent on this video and poll, which was about $13,0000, and said if they got the same poll results or worse, he'd pay double their expenses.

Ziegler said the people in this video were not chosen by him, but were chosen by a black female.

Ziegler blamed the "mainstream" media more than these ignorant voters. He is right that the media deserves plenty of blame, because they put themselves forward as being "objective" and "unbiased"...and their behavior during this election made a mockery of that claim like never before.

However, it is every person's responsibility to ensure for themselves that they are knowledgeable and informed about the candidates and issues. In this day and age where an abundance of information and news sources are available, it is inexcusable for an American to be anywhere near this uninformed about the candidates and issues.

Ball games, the latest Britney Spears CD, new cell phone ring tones, and Survivor: Third Moon of Jupiter are not more important than our civic duty to be informed voters.

Sean Hannity said these interviews mirrored the results he gets when he does "man on the street" interviews his radio show; I've heard a number of these interviews, and they are truly pathetic.

Some of the Zogby results:

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

If I was Barack Obama and knew that this was my voter base, I would be profoundly ashamed.

"The media coverage of this campaign was so scandalous, so beyond bias into the realm of media malpractice."

Repairing the Foundations of a Nation Under Assault, Part 1

Many conservatives are not afraid to speak their mind and even speak up in the public arena for their values. But almost none of us (myself included) are consistently doing what must be done to positively impact our decaying culture.

Many of us grew up having been taught the founding principles of our great nation. Often our parents told us of our country's noble ideals and the things that make America great. If we grew up several decades ago, we might even have been lucky enough to be taught some of this in public school.

People who recognize the great founding principles of the United States, understand the inestimable value of personal freedom and responsibility, and cherish our heritage of limited government are usually known as "conservatives."

Even if we weren't taught these things as children, some of us have learned somewhere along the way that the liberal policies proffered by the Democrats (really Marxist policies) are antithetical to the principles of Americanism. People who didn't know this to begin with but later came to realize it are usually described as "liberals who were mugged by reality."

Sadly, few are learning these lessons today, and few have for decades.

Our public education system has acquiesced to if not embraced liberalism and has foisted that ideology on our children even as it has attempted to erase the history of our Christian heritage and origins of limited government.

Our media establishment sold out lock, stock and barrel to liberalism decades ago. From the movies to television to music to journalism, there is only a constant stream of revisionist history, derision of traditional values and shameless promotion of liberalism as the ultimate and only reality. Moral ambiguity is the best we can hope for in almost all media fare.

This flood of propaganda has proven very effective in producing one or more generations that are almost entirely ignorant of their heritage, oblivious to world history, and lack even the basic analytical skills necessary to sift truth from lies.

This brainwashed culture is what we face in the arena of ideas to day, and it is what conservatives must deal with as we try to turn our culture around from its headlong plunge toward the abyss.

We don't have to like it, but we must acknowledge it, deal with it, compensate for it...and then overcome it.

READ MORE...

How Obama Got Elected: Zombie Voters

Now I know that our liberal bloggers in South Dakota are more informed than the folks in this video (our lib bloggers at least know who most of the players are), so don't think I'm poking fun at you, liberal bloggers.

But you know as well as I do that this is almost certainly all-too-typical of the Obama voter profile.

The website How Obama Got Elected put together this video and their website features some interesting information gathered by Zogby polling on Obama voters:

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

You might recall that I wrote a few weeks ago about the Case Against Clueless Voting. You probably thought I was being mean and unfair. This video proves I was not; I was probably being overly gracious.

A vote is a sacred thing, not to be exercised lightly. It is also a potentially dangerous thing when used indiscriminately, and in concert with other indiscriminate and poorly-aimed votes.

Note where most of these mindless zombies got their vast ocean of political information: NPR, PBS, CNN, Bill Maher, New York Times, BBC (which, incidentally, for you fellow zombies out there, is the liberal British Broadcasting Company), MSNBC, Jon Stewart. All Leftist propaganda mouthpieces, most of which try to pass themselves off as "objective." However, I think the only folks they're fooling into believing that are the type in this video.

I wish they had asked these Obama voters their number one reason for voting for Obama. Given the level of ignorance here, I think it would be a pretty safe bet to guess it would be something like "Because he's gonna stick it to the rich!" or maybe "He'll pay for my health care" or some such envy-driven drivel.

You know, if I ran for office and had this many complete ignoramuses vote for me, I think there's a good chance my sense of integrity would compel me to step down for the good of the country.

By the way, I suppose these Obama voters at least deserve credit for recognizing there are not 58 states in the United States (as Obama said).

www.HowObamaGotElected.com looks at how media coverage of the 2008 election impacted what Obama voters knew (or thought they knew) about the campaign.

McCain T-Shirt at School Garners Hostile Reactions

Catherine Vogt, a 14-year-old girl in Illinois got a lesson in tolerance from the oh-so-tolerant Left when she wore a McCain t-shirt to school recently. (see video below)

She conducted an experiment by wearing on one occasion an Obama t-shirt and on another a McCain t-shirt and recorded the responses.

While most people at her school liked the Obama shirt, both peers and teachers had strongly adverse reactions to the McCain shirt.

Among the comments she received about the McCain shirt were that she should be "burned with her shirt on" for "being a filthy-rich Republican," and that she should be crucified (only the product of public education who told her this mangled the word and said she "should be crucifixed").

It sounds like most of these mush-minded young people and the mush-minded liberals teaching them reacted like good little sheep and followed what the "mainstream" media and the rest of pop-culture told them they should think about a conservative or semi-conservative candidate.

Anyone who thinks our public school system isn't a breeding ground for liberalism really needs to watch this video and think about how the values you're trying to instill in your children may be undermined when you send them to school.

This is just one more incident where the cries for "tolerance" from the Left have become an indictment of hypocrisy. If anything good can come of all the juvenile behavior coming out of liberals in recent weeks, it would be good if this could move us beyond all the crying and whining about "intolerance" we get from the Left, allowing us to move on to substantive debate on the issues.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Elli Schwiesow on Education Funding

Dakota Voice continues our series from an issues-interview with Independent District 32 senate candidate Elli Schwiesow.

Schwiesow, a life-long Republican, is running against incumbent Democrat Tom Katus and Republican Stan Adelstein.

In this series, Schwiesow has discussed her stand on the issues of taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool, energy, Native American issues, and Initiated Measure 11. Today she discusses education funding.

"I am not in favor of education regulations or mandates both state and federal that contribute to cost but little to education," said Schwiesow. "Eliminating mandates would put more money in the classroom and whenever education money is spent, it should be spent as close to the student as possible--books, blackboards, computers, desks, etc. If the student touches it, it has priority over other uses."

On the current education funding lawsuit which has some South Dakota schools suing the state government for more taxpayer funding, Schwiesow doesn't think it will succeed.

"I do think the school funding formula will change in the coming legislative session," she said. " There is lower population density in the western part of the state and we have always been on the losing end of education funding. The school boards and the citizens have brought it to the attention of their representatives, and I think the legislature is ready to make some changes."

She acknowledges that more consolidation is probably a reality, and that it will be tough, but are necessary.

Schwiesow said, "School consolidations will be a reality, though exactly what the cutoff number will be has yet to be determined. But we've been consolidating schools for many years, and while it is sometimes hard, it can become necessary. I think it's the state of Utah which only has five school districts and five superintendents for the whole state."

She pointed out that the general fund has gone from $70 million to $79 million in two years, and the state aid has gone from $28 million to $32 million in that same time frame. This shows that funding has gone up without any real increase in the number of students enrolled.

All the same, Schwiesow sees a lot of good in the South Dakota education system.

"I went to a Board of Regents meeting and they discussed how 70% of our high school graduates continue their education," said Schwiesow. "About 60% of those kids go to school here in the state of South Dakota."

She would also like to see an expansion in vocational education.

"Everyone needs an education but not everyone needs or wants a college education," Schwiesow said. "Give our young people the opportunity to learn skills that will bring them better job opportunities."

In the next and final installment, Elli Schwiesow talks about health care in South Dakota.

Traditional marriage is vital to kids and education

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

According to the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association, the Proposition 8 marriage initiative has nothing to do with what is taught in California's public schools. The "Yes on 8" campaign claims that if homosexual marriage stays legal in California, kids will learn in public schools that this kind of "marriage" is normal and legitimate.

Proposition 8 is the ballot initiative in California that, if passed in November, will amend California's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The initiative follows a decision by the California Supreme Court last May that legalized homosexual marriage.

In a recent ad run by "No on 8", California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O'Connell, says "Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids .... our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage."

To call this misleading would be the understatement of the 2008 campaign season.

The California Department of Education makes a comprehensive sex education curriculum available to every school district, but specifies that it's voluntary.

A poll done by the Public Policy Institute of California in 2006 showed that 78 percent of California's adults want comprehensive sex education in the public schools. According to the "Yes on 8" campaign, 96 percent of the school districts currently provide it.

If a school district does provide sex education, it must follow the guidelines of the California Department of Education. According to these guidelines, as they appear on the CDE website, the schools "shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

It doesn't take much to conclude that just about every kid in California's public school system gets some kind of instruction about marriage at some time. Should homosexual marriage remain a legal institution in California, there is little doubt that children graduating from California's public schools will see homosexuality and homosexual marriage as normal and legitimate as proverbial American apple pie.

If Proposition 8 has "nothing to do with schools or kids,'' then why has the California Teachers Association, the union of California's teachers and public school employees, contributed well over $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign?

The teachers union opposes school choice and vouchers, claiming on its Web site that vouchers "hurt students and schools by draining scarce resources away from public education." Yet the union somehow sees it helping education to write a check for a million dollars to keep homosexual marriage legal.

This same California teachers union weighed in earlier this year to support a California appeals court decision, subsequently reversed, which would have effectively shut down home schooling in the State of California.

It should concern everyone that the idea of parents having the freedom to choose where and how to educate their child is abhorrent to our public school establishment. And that this same public school establishment is obsessed with peddling left wing moral relativism to our kids.

Who is hurt the most? Our most vulnerable kids.

According to a report released earlier this year by Colin Powell's organization America's Promise, about 70 percent of kids who enter public school in our nation's 50 largest school districts graduate.

In Los Angeles, the second largest school district in the country, 45 percent of kids graduate. These are overwhelmingly Latino and black kids from largely troubled or broken families.

The greatest influence on how a child performs in school is the home from which that child comes. Take kids from already troubled homes and put them in schools where traditional values are at best taught as a footnote to a large menu of possible lifestyles, and the result is children and communities that have no future.

Maintaining the integrity marriage and family in California, the nation's largest state, is critical for children not just in California, but also in the whole country. Let's hope that Californians vote in November to save traditional marriage and help pull our nation back from moral oblivion.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Radical Liberal Group Contributes $1.1 Million to Oppose Measure 10

For Immediate Release

Pierre, SD - The radical left group, National Education Association contributed $1.1 million to the group opposing the South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act, YES on 10!

You might have seen one of the ads from the No on 10's big lie campaign. South Dakotans should feel comfortable in knowing that each one of their dishonest and desperate "Gag Law" commercials have been refuted as outright lies. YES on 10! will not take away anyone's personal right to speech and their ability to address elected officials, it simply prevents them from using tax dollars to pay for it.

"We now know according to No on 10's campaign spokesman Steve Willard, their big lie 'Gag Law' TV campaign would not have been possible without the funding the radical left, taxpayer subsidized, NEA" said Lee Breard, the Executive Director of the SD CAC.

"The NEA is a taxpayer subsidized organization that collects its dues from state chapters and payroll deduction of educators across the county," said Breard. "The problem is the NEA does not represent the values of many educators. The NEA uses its tax-subsidized funding to promote a radical liberal agenda through campaigning and lobbying."

Here are a few issues the NEA stands for and uses our tax-subsidized dollars to promote:

· Oppose school choice and vouchers
· Promote unlimited abortions
· Supports gay marriage
· Teach 5-8 year olds in the classroom that it is ok to be homosexual,
· Teach 5-8 year olds masturbation is ok
· Thoroughly explaining vaginal intercourse to 5-8 year olds
· Remove parental education rights
· Condoms for students in elementary school
· Radical liberal candidates
· Oppose private accounts for social security
· Support mandatory Pre-K

"I don't believe a majority of the great teachers in South Dakota support these radical issues. It is time to stop their hard earned dues and our tax dollars from being used by radical left groups such as the NEA," said Breard. "Every voter in South Dakota should take pause before buying into the Big Lie "Gag Law" campaign and look at who paid for the advertisement."

Join the majority of South Dakotans who are supporting YES on 10! It is time to stop our tax dollars from being used for lobbying and political campaigns.

The SD CAC is a non-partisan political non-profit organization that focuses on voter education and does not endorse candidates. We support: Efficiency and Accountability in Government, Limiting Government Spending, Comprehensive School Choice, and Private Property Rights.

Universal Preschool: Is It Worth It?

A closer look at universal preschool, sans the rose-colored glasses.

From Reason.tv

Obama, Ayers and ACORN: Peas in a Pod

Watch the video below for some startling information.

"Abolish the ROTC"

"Bring the war home" (with communist fist in background)

"Power to the Weathermen"

"Piece now"

Barack Obama says Bill Ayers is "a guy who lives in my neighborhood; a professor of English in Chicago."

Records indicate Barack Obama and Bill Ayers' paths crossed repeatedly, according to meeting minutes, was the board of the Annenberg Challenge.

With no prior executive experience, Obama was recruited by Bill Ayers to be chairman and president of this $50 million Leftist public education project.

This project gave millions to the Small Schools Project--created by Ayers and former Communist Party Leader Michael Klonsky.

They also sent money to ACORN--the group currently under investigation for vote fraud in a dozen states. ACORN was founded by another SDS comrade Wade Rathke. In some cases, 85% of their voter registrations have been classified as "trash."

Obama and Ayers also worked together on the Woods Fund. One of the recipients of Woods money was Obama's pastor, the racist, anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

ACORN also got Woods Fund money.

"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread." - Maria Warren, eyewitness (Politico, 1/22/2008)

"I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." - Bill Ayers, 9/11/2001

When Bill Ayers told the New York Times that America "makes me want to puke..." and he wished he'd committed more terrorist bombings against the United States, Barack Obama was 40 years old, and working on his second "philanthropic" project with Ayers.

Bill Ayers has never repented, never apologized, and never renounced his revolutionary communist ideals. In fact, he worked to bring them into inner-city schools, and Barack Obama worked with him.

An ACORN doesn't fall far from the tree. Does it?

Indoctrination: School Text Book Features 15 Pages on Obama

I guess some of our Leftist institutions have thrown off all pretense of objectivity.

I know, I know; the "mainstream" media shed that cloak some time ago.

But now, apparently so have schools and text book publishers.

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin and Real Debate Wisconsin, we learn that an 8th Grade literature book used in Racine Unified School in Wisconsin features 15 pages on Barack Obama. And not even in a history or civics or social studies class, but literature.



Does John McCain get equal time? Does our current president get equal time in this literature book?

The indoctrination of our children has reached truly staggering proportions. I'm reminded of some of the politically correct social engineering that has been inserted into many textbooks, even math books.

One example in a math book went something like this: "If you are gay and living with your partner in a homophobic state that won't allow you to marry, and your assets are worth $250,000, how much does your partner stand to lose in the event of your death, since you live in such a hate-filled state?" (I'm exaggerating a little here...but not much)

As Michelle Malkin said, this is Reason #99,99,988 to homeschool--and I'm glad I do.

First Graders on a Field Trip to See a Homosexual 'Wedding'

This is beyond outrageous, but will our society as a whole do more than yawn?

There is clearly only one reason for this kind of blatant indoctrination: to warp the children's sense of normality, and what is right and wrong, while they are at their youngest and most impressionable.

In an age (not that long ago) with a functioning moral compass, this kind of behavior on the part of these "teachers" would have been seen as criminal abuse of a child.

For the sake of our children, we need to be busy taking back our society from those who would warp it and the children beyond recognition.

Elli Schwiesow on Universal Preschool

When a Republican challenges a Republican in the general election, people sit up and take notice. That's what is happening in South Dakota's Legislative District 32 Senate race this year.

Elli Schwiesow has been heavily involved in state and local Republican Party efforts for many years. But this year, as she considered the tremendous expense it would require to overcome Stan Adelstein in the Republican primary, she decided to run in the general election as an Independent.

The entire state is watching as incumbent Democrat Tom Katus is challenged by two Republicans: Elli Schwiesow running as an Independent, and Stan Adelstein who many say exemplifies Republican values far less than his Independent foe.

In the weeks leading up to the November 4 election, Dakota Voice is publishing a series of articles examining Schwiesow's position on a number of issues.

Because of her longstanding commitment to pro-life causes, Elli's foes often claim she is a "single-issue candidate." We wanted to see if that was really the case.

So far, Schwiesow has talked extensively about taxes and Second Amendment rights. Today Schwiesow talks about universal preschool.


"The legislature has seen bills advancing universal preschool for the last couple of years, and we will definitely see it again this year," Schwiesow said.

"I think we need to give children time to be children," cautions Schwiesow. "Certainly small minds are like sponges and they soak up a lot of information but a certain level of maturity is also needed to be successful in school, so no, I do not favor universal pre-kindergarten."

Schwiesow points out that no one wants to pay higher taxes, and education funding is always a challenge. She pointed to the education funding lawsuit seen this year, with school districts suing the state for more money.

"Where would additional funding for universal preschool come from," asked Schwiesow rhetorically. "Would it come from present school funding? The money isn't there."

Still, she is under no illusions that proponents of universal preschool will be back yet again in the coming legislative session.

"While our governor supports preschool, the legislature stood pretty firm against it before," said Schwiesow. "The legislature said there isn't enough money to spend on everything some people currently want, so how can we add the tremendous cost of universal preschool to that? Is government responsible for preschool and daycare programs? I don't think South Dakota is interested in going there."

She also cited numerous studies which question the long-term benefit of preschool, including the recent testimony of Stanford professor Erik Hanushek who stated preschool doesn't seem to have much in the way of long-term educational benefits; many studies indicate preschool gains have dissipated by the first or second grade.

"I've looked at the research on the effects of preschool," Schwiesow said. "Parents have been encouraged to place their children in programs 'the earlier the better.' I fell into that huge push for preschool with my youngest, and now research is finding that the 'home with mom' kid does better. There may be some benefit in the first grade or two, but those children given secure home foundations have better self esteem and tend to do better in school overall."

Schwiesow acknowledged that studies have found that there is more benefit from preschool for children coming from tough, disadvantaged backgrounds. However, Schwiesow pointed out that the state is already involved in helping many of these children on a number of levels, and questions whether any additional assistance is feasible, both from a practical and funding perspective.

Related:

South Dakota Family Policy Council Voter Guide
Project VoteSmart

Next time, Schwiesow discusses energy and what can be done in South Dakota to help meet America's energy needs.

Libraries Accept Smut, Refuse Material Critical of Homosexuality

Isn't it nice how the tolerant, open-minded Left just can't see it's way to entertain anything critical of it's pet causes?

If someone even broaches the idea of not having the pro-homosexual "Daddy's Roommate" in a library...oh, the nerve! What CENSORSHIP!

But donate a book to a library which might point out the immorality of homosexuality, or perhaps the myriad health risks involved...oh, the nerve! How dare we offend homosexuals?

We used to consider it a worthy thing to warn people about dangerous behaviors; we seem to have "outgrown" such provincial attitudes.

Apparently the Left believes everyone is entitled not only to be free of offense, but deserves a right to destroy their body and soul without the slightest warning.

How enlightened of them.

Palin Smarter Than Biden (Couldn't Resist)

Sorry, I couldn't resist that headline after weeks of hearing how stupid, provincial and unqualified Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is for vice president of the United States.

In a remarkable flareup of candor from CNN, we find that Palin spoke at a higher grade level in Thursday night's vice presidential debate than did Senator Joe Biden.

An analysis carried out by a language monitoring service said Friday that Gov. Sarah Palin spoke at a more than ninth-grade level and Sen. Joseph Biden spoke at a nearly eighth-grade level in Thursday night's debate between the vice presidential candidates.

Grade level: Biden, 7.8; Palin, 9.5 (Newspapers are typically written to a sixth-grade reading level.)

That tells you something about newspapers as well, doesn't it?

The article also tells us something about those founders and early statesmen who, oh my, just weren't as smart and as sophisticated as we are today (with our zombie-like followings of Britney Spears and Survivor: Third Moon of Jupiter):

The analysis said Abraham Lincoln spoke at an 11th-grade level during his seven debates in 1858 against incumbent Stephen A. Douglas in their race for a Senate seat from Illinois.

Hmmm. Maybe those folks living in America's past actually did know a thing or two.

And either way you look at it, Palin showed the elitists snobs in the "mainstream" media and other Leftist peanut galleries a thing or two Thursday night.