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: 

Obama wants you to spread your wealth around, but doesn't do it himself. His charitable donations are abysmal, amounting to less than 2% on average.

He wants you to contribute $845 billion to his Global Poverty Act, but he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya. Guess he has no responsibility to half-brothers?

At the convention he summed up the ability to prosper in America, "Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own." He then contrasted that cynical view with his ideals: (My emphasis)

Our government should work for us, not against us.  It should help us, not hurt us.  It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep.  That's the change we need right now.  So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Obama repeated his "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper" clip in last night's infomercial.

Well, Obama isn't president yet, but we can see how much he believes in his own words: His own Aunt Zeituni lives in a rundown tenement in Boston. Guess being your sister's keeper doesn't apply to aunties either.

Last night Obama also appeared on Jon Sewart's show. He tried to diffuse the Socialist label by quipping,

"That whole socialism argument, that doesn't fly too well,'' Obama said. "The evidence of this seems pretty thin. I said today that I think they found proof that when I was in kindergarten I shared some toys with my friends and that's clearly a sign of subversive activity. 

But there is a big difference between sharing, which is voluntary, and being coerced to share, which is involuntary. Plus, sharing toys in kindergarten doesn't even count. The toys in kindergarten were not personally owned by Obama; they belonged to the school system

When we share our own assets, that is charity. When we share our own assets with friends, that is called friendship. When we are coerced to share our bounty through taxation--to spread the wealth around--that is called socialism! 

Obama summed it up best himself when he was asked about the greatest moral failure in his life and of America at the Saddleback Forum: (My emphasis)

...And what I traced this to [his wild living] is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about --

WARREN: I like that. I like that.

OBAMA: Absolutely. So -- but look, you know, when I -- when I find myself taking the wrong step, I think a lot of times it's because I'm trying to protect myself instead of trying to do god's work.

WARREN: Yeah, fundamental selfishness.

OBAMA: So that, I think, is my own failure.

WARREN: What about America?

OBAMA:: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty... There's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about "the least of these."

Obama's selfishness and socialism is showing. If he does not do for the least of these in his own family, what makes you think he will do for you?

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: 

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has used his skin color to his advantage in this election.  Anytime anyone brings up his past associations with Rev. Wright, terrorist William Ayers, Father Flager,  or FannieMae's Franklin Raines, etc., Obama's campaign squawks, that's racist. (Go figure, 2 of those men are white.) Referencing Obama as a community activist/organizer was deemed a code word for black too.

But in just the past few weeks, more disturbing relationships have come to light: Obama's ties and associations with The New Party socialists and Marxists.

From Gateway Pundit, Photo Discovered Of Obama With Fellow Chicago Socialist Party Members:

Bloggers New Zeal and The Big Feed discovered this photo of Barack Obama and other New Party socialists including Danny K Davis (center), from the front page of New Party News, Spring 1996:

Click to Enlarge
Winners! NP-endorsed candidates Patricia Martin (far left), Danny Davis (center), and Barack Obama (far right), celebrate with Chicago New Party members Ted Thomas and Ruth Schools after their victories in the Democratic Primary last month.

From POWERLINE: "We wrote here about Barack Obama's ties to the New Party during the 1990s. The New Party was a far-left organization founded by members of the Democratic Socialists of America and other extremists. It not only endorsed Obama in his 1996 state Senate race, but, when Obama won, wrote that he was an 'NP member.' "

And don't forget Obama's high school mentor, Communist Frank Marshall Davis.

How about the fact that the US Communist Party Endorsed Obama and Fidel Castro Endorses Obama--Again.  Need I say more?

But associations aside, all you have to do is look at Obama's platform to see where his ideology lies. The Obama tax plan is nothing but a redistribution of income, giving checks to workers who don't pay any Federal income taxes! If that doesn't scream socialism, I don't know what does.

If Obama is elected president, it would be a historical first. Not just because he would be the first Black* president in American history, but more significantly, the first Pink one. It is the Pink color that breaks my heart.

*Yes, I know the current PC term is African American, but that does not fit into the theme of color. 

Don't miss Another Communist in Obama's Orb, Meet Michel Klonsky, Obama's "social -justice" education expert.  

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

Links: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

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

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

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

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

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

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

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

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

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

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

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

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

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

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

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

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

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

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

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links: 

Oh, this is a new low (H/T Drudge): Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever today:

This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

...Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

What I find so puzzling is that according to the pundits, an increase in Congressional seats by Democrats is predicted for this November.

We are at an all time low in voter approval with the Democrats in control, but polls show Democrats are still favored? From Rasmussen:

Despite these negative attitudes towards Congress, Democrats continue to enjoy a double digit lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The Rasmussen survey hit the nail on the head,

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

The blame can be spread over both parties, but being a conservative, I find some Republicans more tolerable. It must be very frustrating to be one of the 14%. 

I think we should just let the Congress take longer vacations. It is the only time I don't have to worry about what they are up to in Washington! If voters don't wake up soon, that may be the best solution. ; )

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.29 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: