No Moral Equivalence Between Reagan and Bush Address to School Children and Obama Indoctrination

right on …

I don’t think it proper form any president to talk to the children while in school. They get enough liberal indoctrination as it is.

@SFC D.: Once again, a lib ignores the blatant and not so subtle political progandizing from Obama’s Dept. of Educatuion.

Sorry SFCD… it isn’t going to fly.

You tell your kids to make posters with quotes from Obama’s speeches and write letters pledging their helpt to him if you want. But don’t use taxpayer dollars and a captive audience to force your views on others.

Even when Bush did something much less noxious you people went ballistic.

HYPOCRITES!

@SFC D.

That’s right, you couldn’t have possibly thought that I mean for that holiday. Liberals need to be told how to wipe every time!

Thank you for covering my blog post. I appreciate it. Let’s continue to fight the fight!

God bless.

–Adrienne

Uhrm… why the bloviating about “moral equivalency” when there is, you know, ACTUAL EQUIVALENCY?

Hysterically (literally!) funny. Keep up the good work.

@SFC D. – or whatever name you use on other sites…
Does anyone even remember the FUROR the LEFTists & MSM posed over the welcome back to school messages of Reagan or Bush 41 — their welcome back to school greetings — without follow-up poster generation, assignments, speech analysis, or year-long graded curriculum agenda for all school children?? His Presidency includes all this — that is the difference…

Why are we having to meticulously monitor (above normal citizen responsibility) every BLASTED action of the Presidency and his minions??? Feels like we are a separate country from King Barry! Or SFC D — will Barry have a workbook for school children on this as well for all adults?
—————————–

Did anyone ever see the movie, “The Last Starfighter” ? The alien enemies trying to take over the earth kept relentlessly probing the Earth’s safety-net/ force field to find the weakness/the “in” to conquer earth…comes to mind everytime I have heard this poseur (BO) speak since he ran for Illinois state legislature…..

No wonder the left wants to rid our country of the older generation (anyone over 45) — they remember our country’s history/news events.

@American Voter asked: “will Barry have a workbook for school children on this as well for all adults?”

Well, B. Hussein did bring back the Veterans death book. I suppose we will all be getting a copy of that very soon.

Good point about getting rid of anyone with a grasp of pre-Obama history!

Many people are discussing President Obama’s planned speech to schoolchildren, which will include lesson plans and assignments to the students. In defense, people respond saying that Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. also spoke to schoolchildren. Never mind the outcry from Democrats about these speeches. The defenders completely omit the lesson plans. For the first time in our history, a high government official is suggesting lesson plans! Again, the criticism is not so much the talk as the ordering teachers to follow Obama’s lesson plans.

I am an Adjunct Associate Professor, have been a substitute teacher in high school, as well as a mentor for new high school teachers. Teachers put too much emphasis on lesson plans. In contrast, a university professor submits a course syllabus, which follows general department guidelines. The daily lesson depends upon students’ reactions and the professor’s insight. To straightjacket teachers to lesson plans prevents them from fully utilizing their creativity and understanding of the subject. As a substitute teacher, occasionally a teacher would criticize me for deviating from the plans. As a professional, it is my obligation to respond to questions, and never to say that although I know the answer I cannot tell them as it is not in the lesson plan.

The bottom line is that the respsonsibility for teaching lies with the teacher. Plans given by others in authority, such as the principal, superintendent, or the President, should be treated only as mere suggestions. Teachers should not be compelled to report to the authority as to the extent they followed the suggested plans.

The President should make his talk and lesson plans only on the Internet, as a file teachers can download and show it to students when they feel appropriate. Instead of doing this the first day of school, it can be done by a sub when the teacher is absent. Teachers are absent frequently, and most subs are not capable of teaching the class.

The content of Obama’s address is troublesome. The purpose of education is not to create the desire of young people to be President or other politician or to try to help. The purpose is to educate youth about Western Civilization, mathematics, science, literature, and communication. In particular, American children need to understand the basic principles of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution. The idea is that the optimum society is one with individual freedom, property rights, justice, along with a weak central government that is limited to certain specific powers. American children need to understand that strong government control, such as Great Britain before our Revolution, or dictatorships in places like Venezuela, is harmful to both people’s pocketbooks as well as people’s spirits.

Instead of asking students can help, we should as how can students use their knowledge, skills, and creativity to work as free individuals to make society a better place.

May I urge teachers and officials to ignore President Obama, and, in particular, not to keep any records of anyone not cooperating.

Please think carefully about this important matter, and do what is best for our children and our country.

Thank you very much.

My wife is actually a high school english teacher, and they chose to show the speech/videos during lunch in a private room. Attendance is completely voluntary. I felt that was a fair balance given the circumstances. However, my personal opinion is that for 99% of the time, our politicians shouldn’t be talking directly to our kids. Not dems. Not repubs.

My kids aren’t old enough to vote, much less frame things into perspective. Most kids don’t understand abstract thought or grasp objectiveness, for a long time. During those early years, everyone knows that kids are what we call ‘impressionable’. EVERYONE with kids knows this. You say a bad word even once, you may run a great chance of hearing it again. You push hard into sand, you leave a hand print. The same way we have a generation walking around called (at least in part) the MTV generation, I can’t see how this is any different.

In all seriousness (and being completely objective here), when you show a group of very impressionable young people all of their favorite celebrities in a well done video during an obama speech (to them), there is no doubt what the point is: “i pledge not to litter, support obama, not be wasteful, support obama, drive a green car, support obama, watch out for our fellow man, support obama”, ad nauseum…

It then becomes a battle of those that support and those that do not. Take out the ‘support obama’ junk and you are left with contemporary common sense (and of course liberal indoctrination – but that has always been in hollywood). Again, would these celebs do the same thing if bush wanted to make a video? If in fact this is completely benign, why didn’t they do it in the last 8 years? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the president, would it?

Is what Obama doing actually beneficial? Especially right now? Or is he stirring the pot even more? Has anyone ever said the right thing at the wrong time, and it was taken badly? Has anyone said the wrong thing at the wrong time, and things get very out of hand? I think that is whats going to happen.

Is it more about getting everyone on the left page, or is it more about the kids? I really don’t feel this is /for/ the kids (i.e. to benefit them), more than it is /using/ the kids. I am sure Chairman Mao thought that when kids memorized his quotes, he was in fact doing them a favor. I really do feel that what Obama and his peeps think they are doing, is saving America from itself. Thanks be to the one.

First read your average public school history text book. Then read something by James Loewen or Howard Zinn and ask yourself who’s doing the indoctrination. This whole idea about liberal indoctrination is just a myth propagated by conservatives so that they don’t ever have to refute a real argument or any facts concerning the history of this nation. “Don’t believe that, its just Liberal Propaganda” is a great argument when you don’t know what you are talking about. Its like the whole “Liberal bias” in the media. Anybody who watches news not from huge profit-hungry American corporate media giants knows that even the most Liberal of mainstream American news stations are very conservative by any rational standard of measure. But I got to hand it to you, if you can make your kids believe that Obama has horns on his head and all his teachers are Communists, you can keep them believing all of your conservative lies. Sad part is that the people hurting most in this country, the rural poor, are the ones most hurt by the Conservatives rush to give away all power in this country to huge multi-national corporate interests and the ultra rich. (Kinda like how Reagan RAISED the payroll tax, but slashed taxes on millionaires.)

The left sure is upset these days. Guess the superior intellect they think they have is failing them.
Condescension, denial of reality, and projection. Congrats aaron you’ve hit the leftist trifecta! Most of your fellow mental patients at DKOS or DUNG will be thrilled by your post.
Us? We just laugh at how badly you need to take your meds.

To translate what aaron said:
Because the MSM aren’t outright communists doing nothing but attacking Conservatives 24/7, they are Conservative.
Indoctrination? It’s okay when we do it.
Smearing president obama? Any criticism of him is a smear that must be stopped. When we lied about Bush and displayed our assassination fantasies that was completely OK since we were the ones doing it. In short, we are major hypocrites who pretend to care about the little man while making his plight worse all so we can gain power, money, and a sense of moral superiority.

@Aaron: Show me the lesson plans were teachers were instructed to have students right President Bush offering to help. What were G.H.W.B’s goals anyway?

As for the peer reviewed evidence that manmade global warming is a myth it exists in abundance. Try searching on this blog for more. I’ve posted on that topic multiple times. Sorry, but I gave up playing librarian for lefties. Besides, I doubt you’ll read any of it anyway.

As for your insult at the end where you claim we have no facts, it’s clear that the statement applies to you, not to us.

I would actually love to read that evidence as I am certainly open to that line of reasoning if the science supports it. I have no problem changing my opinion if the preponderance of scientific evidence supports it. I’ll search this site, but it would help if you could throw down a few links.

As for the lesson plans where GHWB instructed kids to “right” him a letter – I don’t know if there are any. That is not the point. What problem do you have with asking students to write the president a letter, even if it is about helping him achieve his goals as the goals that Obama is talking about in his speech have to do with students performing in school. At least he won’t be talking about tax cuts like Reagan did. For the record, I have no problem with Bush’s speech to children, and a little problem with the politically charged portions of Reagan’s speech. I know the Left made a big deal out of it when they did it, so yes, those that criticized Reagan and Bush but not Obama are hypocrites and vice versa.

With regard to someone asking for peer-reviewed evidence about global warming being a myth…since the science used to “prove” global warming is man-made has been totally debunked as junk science, case closed. The Al Gore “movie” is full of holes and false assumptions. The computer model that were used to blame man were used to go backward in time, using historical data, and the models failed to predict what actually happened. Computer modeling is inexact and flawed. The infamous “hockey stick” graph was proven to be a fraud perpetrated by the computer geeks at the IPCC who kept changing the program until the results matched their agenda. The “peer review” was also faked. Al Gore had two graphs in his “movie” where he tried to make CO2 emmissions the cause of temparature spikes. The problem is that, had he superimposed the two graphs, the audience would have seen that the temperature spikes PRECEDED the rise in CO2 emissions. In short, IT’S THE SUN, STUPID. The sun is conveniently left out of the equation by globaloney parishioners. Over 30,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating that man-made climate change is a myth. As with everything of the left, it’s all about tyranny. Liberals assume a superior attitude and think they are the smartest people in whatever room they are occupying. Here’s the rub…you can go to college and get as many degrees as you want, pat yourself on the back and think you’re smart but, if you have no common sense, you’re just an empty-headed liberal with nothing but emotion going for you. That’s why you are susceptible to Obumble and his ship of fools.

@Aaron said: “GHWB instructed kids to “right” him a letter. “

If you want to be taken seriously, and I grant that’s a BIG IF, you’ll stop using cutsie phrases like “right him a letter.”

Sorry you don’t understand the difference between inviting students to write the President a letter, something which is rather commonplace and having students instructed to write letters on how they can help Obama then being held “accountable” at a later date for those letters.

I should think the difference is obvious to anyone with half a brain, whether it’s tied behind your back or not.

P.S. I’m still waiting for you to do some research on your own. Particularly on the issue of global warming. Then perhaps you won’t be so quick to throw around your insults about “logic.” Though I wonder if you understand what the word means.

@Aaron: Aaron, I worked for several years for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I have read much of the science on this issue and I suggest you do the same. You might find it’s not a settled scientific issue after all. The warmers have politicized the science in support of their agenda.

P.S. Yeah, I missed that “right” spelling. So, now that you’re the spelling NAZI, I take it you will be damning the White House for Obama’s speech to “schoochildren?” Surely, you have an even higher expectation for accuracy and detail from them….

Right?

P.S. I haven’t read any arguments you made on facts…. only complaints about what others have said. Is that the “logic” you are talking about?

Good morning all –

Fact – The vast majority of scientists suscribe to the theory that global warming is real and man-made. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

This is my general opinion on climate change – there are a few dissenters, but the vast majority of research and scientists support the man-made global warming model. If anyone in this discussion is a climate change scientist, then you know more than the rest of us, but if not, why not believe the preponderance of the evidence. CALLING CLIMATE CHANGE A “MYTH” PROPAGATED BY THE LEFT IS SIMPLY A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE SCIENCE.

The source, it seems, of the political debate on climate change is one side or the others tendency to accept or reject scientific research. Liberals are more ready to adopt the latest scientific findings while conservatives do not. Obviously there are potential problems with each.

As for the original issue –

Obviously I can tell the difference between asking the students to write a letter and making that letter part of a class assignment and then holding students accountable for what they wrote. But……simply doing that activity is not liberal or conservative indoctrination. If Obama’s speech is going to address issues like staying in school, working hard, and being responsible, then I hope that conservatives are not going to label those things as “liberal indoctrination.” All indications from reading the curriculum material suggests that the address will stick solely to those topics. We can’t say the same about Reagan’s address to students. But Reagan and Bush are really beside the point. My original reason for chiming in was because all the discussion was talking about how Obama’s address was liberal indoctrination of our students. So…….

PLEASE STATE WHAT IN THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULUM FOR OBAMA’S ADDRESS YOU DISAGREE WITH, OR WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION.

http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf

Yes, the material talks a lot about what Obama said and even if it “inspires” you. But the point remains that if Obama is speaking on a completely neutral subject then the bias in the materials is neutral. If his speech is liberal, or conservative, then the material’s bias would be the same. I teach music for grades 7-12. Because I’m liberal, does that mean I’m indoctrinating kids when I teach them about how to play a violin? My point is that the president, or any president for that matter, speaking to children does not constitute a form of indoctrination of any kind. It sounds like the problem most of you have with the speech is the involvement the white house has, but nobody has been able to support their claims that the speech is “liberal indoctrination.”

I am fully aware of article 10 in the bill of rights. I know what its says, and I know that very strict constructionists think that the federal government only holds enumerated power.

My problem with that is this: You must apply that principle equally. You cannot say that it’s okay for the government to create an Air Force, but not a national health plan, if the 10th amendment is your test. You cannot say it’s okay for the president to send troops overseas without an act of congress, but not okay to create social security. Where in the constitution does it give the government power to do most of the things it does? The REALITY is yes, the federal government is WAY bigger than the founding fathers probably envisioned. But you either believe in a strict interpretation of the 10th amendment, and we dismantle 90% of what government does, or you believe in a much looser interpretation. In order to cite the 10th ammendment as a reason why not to do things you also have to disavow other things that you probably approve of the government doing. I don’t know, maybe you believe that there should be no government and its every man for himself, but it’s obvious to me that countries like that aren’t doing so well, and those with a healthy dose of government intervention in the economy, defense, healthcare, and transportation sectors are doing quite well. Look at the HDI of various countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

To sum up, everybody knows that the government is bigger than it was 200 years ago, but the world and America is a very different place. The constitution provides a framework for how to decide and puts limits on what you can decide, but in order to be consistent in your thinking, ask yourself how much of what you approve that government does is really an enumerated power. Remember, there are ways that the government has expanded on the authoritarian side as well, like wire-tapping, that liberals are very scared of. If you ask me, any real conservative or strict constructionist should be appalled at the power grabs by the last white house.

Oh, yeah, the unprovoked war is…….drumroll…..Iraq (2003-present) We can argue the validity of the UN Resolution that GWB cited, the evidence of WMD, etc. another day, but the fact remains that Iraq never attacked us and didn’t have the capability to do so. My threshold for putting people’s lives in harm’s way is very high – only when absolutely necessary.

As has been shown aaron, giving you facts is a waste of time. I knew that from your first post. You aren’t worth the effort. Aye and others respond as not to let your derranged views go unchallenged. They wish to convince those that may be undecided or unintentionally uninformed. That makes them unlike you, which is deliberately uninformed.

Okay – admittedly so, we are on a far tangent from the original argument – the only one who has stated their disagreement with Obama’s speech is Aye Chihuahua. I understand that you do not trust Obama. I would say that I have not heard anything to suggest that Obama’s speech will address any political viewpoints. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Still the major problem that I had from the beginning is vilifying a president for wanting to encourage our students. I see so many students at my school that just don’t care. The supporting curriculum is meant to make the students actually think about what he says and not just go in one ear and out the other. (Side note: My school district in California also sent home opt out forms.) You may not trust Obama, but this hysteria over the speech is, in my opinion, unfounded.

I’ll pose this as a question: Do you think that Obama administration is more guilty of playing divisive politics than the last administration? I actually wish that Obama would stop trying to get a bunch of Republicans on board and just push the legislation through already. It seems to me that he’s trying to reach out too much to the other side. As far as vilifying his opponents, has he said anything that is out of bounds compared to past presidents?

As far as Carter and Clinton using wiretaps, 1) I never said that I supported their use, and 2) It is more the warrant-less wiretapping by Bush administration that I have a problem with. There are numerous court decisions on this issue, so to say that it has been repeatedly upheld or struck down is inaccurate. It is my understanding that in ACLU vs. NSA the courts eventually ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing in the case because they could not prove that they were the ones being wire-tapped. Without the courts granting a subpoena of the lists that the White house kept, there is no way to grant anyone standing. In this, the court never ruled on the legality of the wire-taps. However, we do know that 1) Bush asked congress to change the law to allow for more time to get a warrant after a wire-tap. 2) Bush stated that “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” and 3) Bush did not always have a court order to wire-tap. You may dispute weather he needed one or not, but I think everybody accepts that there were warrant-less wire-taps going on.

I totally agree that FDR’s attempted packing of the courts was a power grab and a bad idea. The constitution does not specify the number of justices on the court, but it set a very bad precedent.

Don’t assume that I agree with everything that Carter, Clinton, and Obama has done – I certainly do not. It also makes me disappointed in conservatives that they supported so many of the Bush Administrations actions, as I think Bush is a million miles away from Barry Goldwater in a sense of true conservatism and limited government.

It is also not really accurate to say the Carter ruined the economy and Reagan got us out, just like it’s not really accurate to say that Bush ruined the economy and Clinton got us out. Economically, they are all very similar. Carter dabbled with a bunch of the supply side economics, Reagan took it into full gear, Bush and Clinton basically continued it, although both were smart enough to raise taxes to try to balance the budget, and GWB took it into full gear again. Supply side economics lead to cycles of boom and bust because there is a glut of cash at the top looking for an investment market. Also, remember, it wasn’t until mid-1983 until the economy started to recover under Reagan, after the government started spending a ton of money on the military. It is easy to argue that it was the increase in government spending that let to the 80’s boom. I also think that H.W. Bush and Clinton’s tax hikes were the stimulus for stabilizing the dollar – one good thing they each did. The long term effects of the last 30 years of supply side economics it the hollowing out of our economy. When Reagan took office, the USA was the Largest creditor nation, the largest importer of raw materials, and the largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world. Now, after 30 years of Reaganomics, we are sadly just the opposite. I hope that Obama goes in another direction, but I’m not sure he will. Hopefully, the spending will stimulate our economy, just like it did after WWII (and his budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is akin to WWII spending.)

And, yes I think that many Dems are in bed with big corporations, just like Republicans. Unions are another story, as I think you can see that real wages and economic prosperity were greatest in the 50s and 60s, when more of our workforce were in unions than today. Giving more power to unions would probably help our economy by putting more money in the hands of the “spending class.” The money spent by working people always trickles up.

Lastly, Hard Right – to quote one of your favorite lines I’m sure, “There you go again.” All I know from what you’ve written is that you hate liberals and are good at stringing insults together. Are you ever going to state your opinion, or do you need to leave that up to your more capable friends. You still haven’t said anything yet!