SAD SAD SAD (55 Days to I-Day, 1515 to GOD)

According to AFP the average US elected official scored only 44% on a basic test on civics, economics, and American history...the average American scored a 49%. The test was composed by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

How would you do? Click here to take the test before you read the article...

BTW, I missed one question and scored a 97%. Of course, I am a former civics teacher and currently employed as an economic analyst. The one question I missed, I think, was poorly worded...but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Let me know how you do...

US officials flunk test of American history, economics, civics

Thu Nov 20, 2:24 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

"It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned," said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.

Indeed...so much for the vaunted "intellectual class" who are indoctrinated instead of educated...

"How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" he added.

The short answer? They cannot...no wonder we are in the mess we are in...

The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics.

Click here for the full article...

A Short Hiatus--

Should be back to posting after Thanksgiving...just too busy right now...

69 Days to I-Day, 1529 Days to GOD (Goodbye Obama Day)--The Problem with Judicial Fiat

Connecticut joins a sad set of States which has had the issue of gay "marriage" settled by unelected and unaccountable jurists. The imposition of public policy via judicial fiat instead of through the legislative process (AKA: legislating from the bench) is a bad idea all around. It is not the purpose of the judiciary to legislate nor to impose public policy.

The major problem with this can be seen in the case of California and Proposition 8.

Since the high court in California stated that marriage law (defined in public policy, common law, and tradition as between a man and a woman) was discriminatory and removed the "limitation" of this traditional definition, homosexual couples have been allowed to persue marriage licenses and to get "married". The problem is that the legislative process was usurped by this over-reaching of the court.

Now that the legislative process has been able to move forward, the people have reasserted the traditional definition and public policy in Prop 8. Now we have a problem--the other side now states that "rights are being taken away"...BUT IT IS THEIR OWN DOING BY PERSUING A JUDICIAL ANSWER TO WHAT MUST NECESSARILY BE A LEGISLATIVE ONE. I do not know what will happen with the "marriages" which took place between the activist court's decision and the passage of Prop 8...I believe they should rightly be declared invalid (since it was not the place of the court to legislate this to begin with).

The definition of marriage ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") is now part of the Constitution of California (after all, Prop 8 was an amendment), so how can it be unconstitutional? It will now take an amendment to overturn it--not a decision by one judge or a group of judges, or even the legislature of the State acting without the people voting. In fact, since any change to this would be a constitutional revision it would require a 2/3 majority in the CA legislature and then a majority of the electorate.

We are seeing the inherent problem of judicial fiat. If one wants to change something, the proper channel is to seek legislative relief. In this case (and in all cases surrounding this issue), judicial decisions which attempt to redefine marriage are overreaching. Marriage is what it is...one does not change a societal definition because it offends one's sensibilities.

Marriage law IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY! Any man who is 18+ can marry any woman who is 18+ (as long as she will have him) as long as they are not blood relations, already married to another, or otherwise limited by law. THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION IN THIS just as there is no discrimination in the fact that I, as a man, cannot get maternity leave, have OB/GYN medical expenses covered by my insurance, have an abortion, etc. IT IS DEFINITIONAL NOT DISCRIMINATION!

70 Days to I-Day, 1530 Days to GOD (Goodbye Obama Day)--Nanny State Realities

Leslie Carbone, a wonderful conservative blogger from my neck of the woods, had a great blog asking "How Will the Nanny State Collapse?" I think the entire blog is well worth the read. Some exerpts follow (emphasis added):

Anybody who's ever spent any time with toddlers knows that we are born selfish, ruled by immediate desires, and unable to delay gratification. We take it as a matter of course that others exist to attend to our needs and wants, and consider it a crisis when there's any delay in satisfying them. If our own impulses lure us into discomfort, we wail until somebody else gets us out of it. With apologies to Hobbes, we enter the world nasty, brutish, and short.

Since the so-called Progressive Era, and with escalating intensity, the federal government reinforced this toddler-level sense of entitlement.

Yes, as the perpetrators of the New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other outrages, Democrats bear tremendous responsibility for fostering this sense of entitlement. But they don't know any better.

As they pad behind the Democrats on the road to serfdom, Republicans know better; at least, that's the conclusion that flows from all the lip service they give individual freedom and responsibility. And so Republican shame for expanding the nanny state is tremendous.

Okay, but here we are. People just assume a nanny state. It doesn't matter how we got here, or who's to blame. It is what it is. Shouldn't Republicans just keep on giving people what they expect?

No, for two reasons.

First, it's morally wrong. It is wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Second, it can't work indefinitely. At some point, Atlas will shrug.

The nanny state will collapse. The question is How? Will it collapse because conservatives step up and provide the moral leadership to correct its underlying assumptions? Or will it collapse because it becomes so big that the few providers are ultimately crushed by the many blood-suckers?

We face a kind of Pascal's wager. We don't know whether moral chemotherapy will work, or whether the cancer that afflicts our character is terminal. But we do know what will happen if we don't try it.

My response to Leslie borrowed heavily from Alexis de Tocqueville, one of my most favorite political philosophers who had a great deal of insight into the American condition:

As Alexis de Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

We are rapidly approaching the day that more are supported by government than are taxed by government. No country in the histroy of the world has survived such an arrangement, and, I believe, neither will ours. Add to that another wonderful quote from de Tocqueville: “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Have we turned away from the Almighty enough that we can be seen as no longer being good? I am not sure, but we are on the way...

We must rebuild the party to provide a real alternative to the maternalistic trends we have persued over the last several decades. The nanny-state must end. Toqueville also provides hope: “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

Great Thoughts from an Anonymous Poster

In response to my blog on Friday titled "Post-Mortem Madness", an anonymous poster, going by the name Publius (those of us that know our history know the name well), posted a rather lengthy response.

I thought it worth front-page focus, so--here it is (with my emphasis added):

In 1787, whilst he exited the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, "What have we got--a republic or monarchy?" His reply, well known, was "a republic…if you can keep it."

The United States Constitution instituted a republic not only for the general government of the several (distinct) States, but it guaranteed this form of government to every State in Article 4, Section 4. This nation was, thus, a republic of republics.

In fact, prior to the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, when Senators were selected by State legislatures, the Senate represented the interests of the States, as independent entities, and the House of Representatives, those of the people.

If only we still had a House of the States...federalism would not be dying its tragic death now...

Although the Philadelphia Convention eschewed monarchy, the document it produced has not completely survived over the years the force of personality in the presidency.

Andrew Jackson sought the abolition of the Electoral College, which would place the selection of the chief executive in the hands of the people instead of the States. Abraham Lincoln signed into law the first income tax, eventually leading to the passage of the 16th amendment that allows Congress to levy an income tax without regard to the States.

Erosion of the rights of individual States, by constitutional alterations and military force (1861-1865), combined with the populists movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, has transformed the American republic increasingly towards the peril of democracy, rule by omnipotent majority.

New Deal and Great Society programs should not be unexpected when the Constitution of 1787 is relegated from fundamental law to historical artifact. Can we fathom what "Change" we are in for from an administration led by someone who describes it as a "charter of negative liberties."

Republics safeguard the rights of individuals and minorities. Democracies facilitate mob rule, allowing those who are experts at winning elections, and but potentially nothing else, to dominate politics. The distinctions between these systems have been noted for over two millennia, from Plato's Republic to Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

Toqueville should be required reading...the most critical warning which speaks to our time: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

James Madison describes the dangers of democracies in Federalist #10, writing "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government... enables it to sacrifice its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." He then argues that the Constitution contains a republican remedy (or it once did).

We can debate ad nauseam about what platform/issues might save the GOP or whether forming a new Conservative party is merited with the Republican brand being tarnished as it is, but unlike the Whig party of the 1850s, whose good name was sullied by debate over slavery, those who claim to carry the banner of Reagan have failed in part because they omit his principle of New Federalism.

INDEED...but such a concept is now so foreign to much of the populace after nearly a century of populism...

I have often marveled that a self professed "conservative" Republican president, who instituted a massive federal insertion into public education and spearheaded an initiative to increase entitlement spending via medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors, could be so vilified by the Democratic Party. This hatred transcends post 9/11 security policies and the Iraq war.

You and me both...to call George W. Bush a conservative in the Regan/New Federalism mold is to be woefully ignorant of what conservatism in this vein is...

But a shift back from democratic populism to a constitutional, federalist republic will not alone save our country. What is also needed is, described in the Constitution of Virginia, Section 16, "the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other."

The 10th commandment states, "You shall not covet." Following this, the politician, who offers to take the wealth of another, by force, and distribute it to others, should hold no power over "We the People."

Let us be clear on the application of this principle. A presidential candidate who offers money to those who do not pay taxes is not reducing tax liability (a tax cut) because no tax is owed. To even call this welfare would be charitable, when it has all the appearance of an outright bribe.

Tocqueville predicted, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." An honest reflection of our current state of affairs leads to the indictment of both Republicans and Democrats in this regard, but the citizens have culpability as well. Is not the recipient of a bribe, paid for at the expense of another’s labor, a willing participant in the treachery?

I will divert from Publius in this matter...when the public is ignorant of such treachery, I do not believe they are culpable...

John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"We can pretend that Republican Party, or the Democratic Party for that matter, or even the "republic" itself can long survive morale relativism or pluralism, but the study of history is not our friend in this regard. We must face the reality that the Great Commission of Matthew 28 holds more power to transform society than the election of any executive, the actions of any legislature, or the rulings of any judiciary.

Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Fight the good fight.

Publius

Governor Palin Dragged Down the Republican Ticket? Um...Really?

Rasmussen Reports released the results of a suvey about Governor Sarah Palin. Among the findings:

69% of Republican voters say Palin helped the ticket

91% of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of Palin

65% of Republican voters have a very favorable opinion of Palin.

From the report:

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.

Three other sitting governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota – all pull low single-digit support.

These findings echo a survey earlier this week which found that Republicans were happier with their vice presidential candidate than with their presidential nominee. Seventy-one percent (71%) said McCain made the right choice by picking Palin as his running mate, while only 65% said the party picked the right nominee for president.

Makes one wonder what might have happened if the old man had picked a liberal like Lieberman or Rendell...maybe then President-elect Obama would truly have a mandate.

One more thought...if Governor Palin would be such a horrible pick for the GOP in 2012, why are the Dems seemingly suffering from the newest strain of BDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome? I think they fear having to run against her!

Post-Mortem Madness

There is no lack of navel-gazing going on now after the election. I have read one that I think is extremely interesting from my friend DJ McGuire. In his post he states the following (worth reading the whole thing, BTW):

Still, we will hear a lot about how young voters in particular are so enthralled by Obama that any opposition to his big-government domestic plans will lose the GOP a generation of voters. Not so fast.

See, those of us who remember when the Republicans were the party of limited government consider those days either halcyon or so far in the past as to be useless. What we tend to forget is this: it was so long ago that young voters don’t remember it.

The last time the Republican Party stuck its neck out and went “to the mattresses” on limited government was the “government shutdown” of 1995. Say what you will about it, the party establishment has been spooked ever since. Thus Gingrich et al rolled over to Clinton’s spendthrift demands in 1998 and hoped Monica Lewinsky would rescue them (she didn’t). George W. Bush ran on “compassionate conservatism” and caught a break when Al Gore’s voters concentrated themselves too heavily in the northeast; then he (Bush) ran for re-election on national security issues, and won. We all remember 2006 and last Tuesday.

So, the last time the Republican Party actually tried to reduce the size of government, the oldest young voter in America today was sixteen. Now, I followed politics at that age, but I was a geek. Most American teenagers aren’t. In other words, no young American voter has ever seen the Republicans try to reduce the size and scope of government.

So, for them, this election was a contest between a big-government party with the charismatic mixed-race nominee with his better-than-any-comedian-on-earth running mate and a big-government party with a cantankerous old guy with the folksy Alaskan.

Are we really surprised who won?

It is time to start over and return to FIRST PRINCIPLES!!! Reagan started this fight before in the 70s telling us in 1975 (empahsis added):

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Finally, another post-mortem that I found which is worth the read. From Leslie Carbone (she has many interesting articles in the last few days) who wrote in her blog on Wednesday Time for Rebuilding:

Voters didn't reject Republicans because they reject conservatism; voters rejected Republicans because they no longer trust Republicans to uphold conservatism. And there's no reason why they should.

Time for a revolution in the ranks--time to retake the Republican party and reinstate conservative first principles.

My Prediction for Who Would Be President This Morning Was Correct!

After all of the hoopla...I was right! George Bush is President today...just like I thought! ;-) (My thanks to my boss, Ron, for this quip...it gave me a needed smile!)

President-Elect Obama

My congratulations to Senator Obama in his historic victory last night. He will be my president and yours on January 20 for at least the next four years.

I do not know what will happen over the next four years, and I pray that President Obama will be successful in keeping America well. I believe that all authority on Earth is from God, so it is God's will that Senator Obama won this election. What God's plan is in this I do not know.

As for my post-mortem...I will leave that to later. Today is a day for quiet reflection and prayer for both the victors and the defeated as we contemplate the future and God's will.

May God continue to bless America.

Be Careful as You Hear the Exit Poll Results and Predictions!

From the McCain campaign (emphasis added):

McCAIN CAMPAIGN MEMO: READING THE EXIT POLLS
BILL McINTURFF, INTERNAL POLLSTER
Mon Nov 03 2008 16:53:14 ET

As we have seen in previous election cycles, the exit poll results do leak early and that ends up influencing the coverage of the race before even the first state polls close at 6:00 PM Eastern.

However, we want to remind the campaign that the media’s own post-election study of the exit polls in 2004 showed that the exit polls overstate the Democratic candidate’s support. Therefore, we would discourage a rush to judgment based on the exit polls and wait until there has been a representative sampling of actual tabulated results from a variety of counties and precincts in a state.

Here are the key points to keep in mind when the exit poll data starts being leaked:
1. Historically, exit polls have tended to overstate the Democratic vote.
2. The exit polls are likely to overstate the Obama vote because Obama voters are more likely to participate in the exit poll.
3. The exit polls have tended to skew most Democratic in years where there is high turnout and high vote interest like in 1992 and 2004.
4. It is not just the national exit poll that skews Democratic, but each of the state exit polls also suffers from the same Democratic leanings.
5. The results of the exit polls are also influenced by the demographics of the voters who conduct the exit polls.

After the 2004 election, the National Election Pool completed a study investigating why the exit polls that year showed John Kerry over performing 5.5 net points better than the actual results showed him to have done. Their conclusion was that the primary reason the exit polls was that Kerry voters and Democrats were more likely to participate in the exit polls.

“Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average Within Precinct Error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. There has been partisan overstatements in previous elections, more often overstating the Democrat, but occasionally overstating the Republican.

We believe that this will hold true this year. The recent Fox News survey showed that 46% of Obama voters said they were very likely to participate in the exit polls, while just 35% of McCain supporters are.

In fact, even the 2004 exit poll report noted that higher turnout nationally and higher levels of voter interest in both 1992 and 2004 correlated with greater Within Precinct Error.

The overstating of the Democratic vote did not only occur in the national exit polls, but also occurred in the state exit polls. The 2004 exit poll report cited that the Kerry vote was overstated by more than one standard error in 26 states, while the Bush vote was overstated in just four states. So we should also expect the individual state exit polls on Tuesday to be more Democratic as well.

So given that turnout is expected to be even higher than 2004 and that Democrats are more likely to participate in the exit polls, this means we should expect greater fluctuation and variation in the exit polls from the actual election results.

The 2004 exit poll report also showed that the greatest error in the exit poll came in precincts where the interviewer was younger. The completion rates were lower and the refusal rates and Within Precinct Error was higher when the interviewers were under the age of 35. Complicating this is that nearly half the interviewers were under the age of 35, including 35% who were 18-24 and another 15% were 25-34.

Conclusions

Based on the previous exit poll results, we should expect once again that Tuesday’s exit poll data could overstate the Obama vote and under represent the McCain vote.

It is important that the campaign make sure the media realizes this, so that when the exit polls do leak, people do not overreact to the early exit poll data. Rather than looking at the exit polls, we should wait until we start seeing actual election results from key precincts and counties to gauge who won the election.

Election Day--FINALLY

I voted early this morning and also worked a local polling place...it was amazing to see the frowns on my Democrat counterparts...meanwhile I cheerfully greeted one and all (including the ones who were obviously supporting The One).

As for the ones obviously supporting The One...here is an example of what they believe...



Wow!

If only I had known that my gas and house would be free if I were to vote for The One...

DAMN!!! Too late now!

Tomorrow is the Election--My Final Prediction

First--we will not know until late...probably Wednesday morning...as many States remain to close to call well into Tuesday night, specifically: FL, OH, PA, VA and probably MO, NH, and NV.

Eastern time zone (mostly around 7pm)

Early calls :

Most of New England (save NH) will be called early for The One: CT, MA, ME, NJ, NY, RI, and VT for a total of 69 EVs as will several of the Mid-Atlantic States: DC, DE, and MD for an additional 16 EVs

Most of the Southeast (save FL) will be called early for McCain: GA, SC, and NC for a total of 38 EVs

FL, OH, NH, PA, and VA will be too close to call early...

Central time zone (most close at 8 pm EST)

Most of the Upper Midwest will be surprisingly close and not immediately called at first: MI, MN, WI, IA, and MO will not be called for a little while...about an hour after their polls close...

Early calls

The One: IL for 21

McCain: AL, AR, KS, KY, MS, ND, NE, OK, SD, TN, and TX for 96 EVs

By the end of the hour I think IA, MN and WI will be called for The One for an additional 27 EVs and IN (11 EVs) will be called for McCain

Right before the Mountain Time Zone close (most around 9pm EST), all but FL, MI, MO, OH, PA, and VA will be called...I think by then NH will be called for The One...

Totals:

The One 144 EVs

McCain 161 EVs

Mountain time zone (most close at 9 pm EST)

Most of these States (save CO, NM, and NV) will be called early and all for McCain: AZ, ID, MT, UT and WY add 25 EVs to McCain

Some time during this hour, I expect MI to be called for The One (17 EVs) and FL and MO to be called for McCain (38 EVs)...

Right before 10pm...

The One 161 EVs
McCain 224 EVs

Pacific Time Zone (most close at 10pm)

Early calls:

CA, OR, and WA to The One 73EVs

By the end of the hour (11 pm)...

NM is called for The One (5 EVs)

while OH and VA are called for McCain (33 EVs)

By midnight, I expect the map to have 3 remaining toss-ups (CO, NV, and PA) and AK and HI pending for a total of :

The One 234 EVs

McCain 262 EVs

Alaska and Hawaii are not in contention, so one could figure +3 for McCain and +4 for The One...making it effectively 238 to 265

At this point, McCain would only need one of the remaining states to win...

My final prediction: McCain wins, picking up both NV and PA...286 to 252