Obama's Back to School Speech

[Andrew Grathwohl]

This is probably the best speech Obama has ever given. If only the rest of his principles and positions paralleled his understanding of the virtues of hard work:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/P...dSchoolRemarks/

I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.

So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

[gags]

It's too bad that the better parts of his rhetoric don't match his legislative actions.

Also, the US Dept. of Education put out a ridiculous lesson plan for teachers to use with the speech in their classrooms. It included some crap about asking students how they think they can help the President. Booooo!

[Maximus]

Rest assured he did not write it.

[2046]

I'm not seeing anywhere in Article II where it gives the President the power to deliver lectures to the children of the United States, or where they must perform tasks or be given lessons about The President's lectures.

[Maximus]

When did that little piece of old paper stop a President from doing something? Hell, he nationalized a goodly portion of the economy recently, with not a whimper from most Americans or the press.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Maximus

[Eiuol]

I'm not seeing anywhere in Article II where it gives the President the power to deliver lectures to the children of the United States, or where they must perform tasks or be given lessons about The President's lectures.

I don't see where the president has powers to deliver lectures, period, so I don't know what your point is (or if you're trying to be sarcastic). There is no "must" involved with the speech.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Eiuol

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't see where the president has powers to deliver lectures, period, so I don't know what your point is (or if you're trying to be sarcastic). There is no "must" involved with the speech.

If there were no musts involved, then surely, you can go on tomorrow, and deliver a speech to all the children in all the schools as well. If he managed to do it without the use of force, why couldn't you...there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents you from giving lectures.

It was a brutish gesture. Someone not striving to be a dictator would've delivered the speech on TV, and asked the parents who are interested to pre screen it and then have their children watch it, while at home. There was no need to deliver it to children when they are away from their parents, except to circumvent away the parents' authority.

In my opinion this is a new low for this administration.

[2046]

I don't see where the president has powers to deliver lectures, period, so I don't know what your point is (or if you're trying to be sarcastic). There is no "must" involved with the speech.

There are many "musts" involved with a lecture given to children as a part of "public education" lesson plan in an unconstitutional government indoctrination system funded by theft and regulated on a compulsory basis. Surely you don't fail to see that?

[Eiuol]

There are many "musts" involved with a lecture given to children as a part of "public education" lesson plan in an unconstitutional government indoctrination system funded by theft and regulated on a compulsory basis. Surely you don't fail to see that?

"Must" would imply something like a mandate. It is not mandated that any school must show his speech. I mean unless I'm completely ignorant, I'm sure private schools would show his speech too. Where else would you deliver a speech for students besides a school? Obviously you'd rather he not make a speech at all, but please point out how there is any "must" to see or hear the speech. Public education is force, sure, but what does that have to do with this speech?

There was no need to deliver it to children when they are away from their parents, except to circumvent away the parents' authority.

Oh right, kids need special protection from Obama, I can't believe I missed that.

[Maximus]

If he made an attempt to politicize them in order to influence their parents, then, yes, they need to protect them from his influence. People of his type are wont to use such tactics. Need I invoke Godwins Law and bring up Hitler Youth?

[Seeker]

Oh right, kids need special protection from Obama, I can't believe I missed that.

They most certainly do need protection from the political philosophy that he represents, one application of which is that it is the proper role of the beloved leader to provide direct instruction to the school-aged children of the dictatorship, and to have them write essays about how each of them can help him succeed, what parts of his speech were most inspirational, etc. Castro's Cuba could hardly have done a better job exemplifying the principle. The message is not what the address says, but that it is being delivered at all.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Seeker

[Eiuol]

They most certainly do need protection from the political philosophy that he represents, one application of which is that it is the proper role of the beloved leader to provide direct instruction to the school-aged children of the dictatorship, and to have them write essays about how each of them can help him succeed, what parts of his speech were most inspirational, etc. Castro's Cuba could hardly have done a better job exemplifying the principle. The message is not what the address says, but that it is being delivered at all.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/mediaresources/

Doesn't sound like anyone -has- to write an essay. And if a teacher requests an essay about his speech in some manner, it's not like Obama succeeded in "corrupting the youth". I don't want to put words in your mouth, and it sounds too strange for me to think it, but are you suggesting he has an explicit goal to indoctrinate kids? I don't even see where even a suggested topic is "how can you help the President succeed".

More generally though, if you think this manner of speech giving is bad, how would you like him to give the speech? The content is really not so bad that you would suggest "he shouldn't give a speech at all".

Edited September 8, 2009 by Eiuol

[Andrew Grathwohl]

If there were no musts involved, then surely, you can go on tomorrow, and deliver a speech to all the children in all the schools as well. If he managed to do it without the use of force, why couldn't you...there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents you from giving lectures.

What? Surely, those TV stations broadcast the speech because they wanted to? Nobody is forcing ABC News to broadcast the speech. You're off your rocker.

[Thales]

Obama shouldn't be delivering a speech to children, since they are not his kids and therefore none of his business. And clearly any speech delivered by the president will be ideological.

[Absolute Sovereigncy]

Obama shouldn't be delivering a speech to children, since they are not his kids and therefore none of his business. And clearly any speech delivered by the president will be ideological.

As much as I agree with you, its true that no one is forcing ABC to broadcast the presidents speech to children. However, you can keep them out of school

for that time.

[agrippa1]

As much as I agree with you, its true that no one is forcing ABC to broadcast the presidents speech to children. However, you can keep them out of school

for that time.

You have heard of the FCC, right? And you've heard of truancy laws, too, right?

So if the government has control over the content of broadcasts over public airwaves, and the mandatory attendance of children in public schools, where exactly does that leave your argument?

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free.

The floating abstractions listed in this passage aren't picked out of thin air. Each of them represents a specific area of Obama's radical ideology.

What does "fighting poverty" mean to Obama the communist, other than taking wealth from the producers by force, and spreading (some of) it around to those who produce nothing?

What does "fighting homelessness" mean to Obama the ACORN activist, other than strong-arming banks into giving home loans to the unqualified under the auspices of the Community Reinvestment Act?

What does "making our nation more fair" mean to Obama the "social justice" champion other than putting people at the front or back of all lines based primarily on the color of their skin?

What does "making our nation more free" mean to Obama the black liberation theologist, other than taking wealth and opportunity from whites guilty (or not) of historical slavery and giving it as reparations to the blacks descended (or not) from slaves?

If someone delivers poison to your kids, you don't defend him by pointing out the wholesome food and drink in which he secreted the poison.

Edited September 8, 2009 by agrippa1

[Corey1911]

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.

So I guess Obama and the Democrats are "quitting on the country" when they force students to attend inferior public schools.

[gags]

I think most people found the original "lesson plan" from the Dept of Education to be the most distasteful aspect of this whole episode. Parts of that lesson plan were later changed in response to parents' objections. Obama is responsible for pushing the most instrusive and expansive government agenda since FDR. So, when the DOE sends a lesson plan to schools that "suggests" teaching methods including discussing or writing about how students can help the President, the whole thing smells like Big Brother. Combine that with the Obama cult of personality and it's more than a little creepy.

[Eiuol]

You have heard of the FCC, right? And you've heard of truancy laws, too, right?

So if the government has control over the content of broadcasts over public airwaves, and the mandatory attendance of children in public schools, where exactly does that leave your argument?

Where is it though that any school has to show his speech? Would it be just as bad if it were shown only at a private school?

[Maximus]

I think most people found the original "lesson plan" from the Dept of Education to be the most distasteful aspect of this whole episode. Parts of that lesson plan were later changed in response to parents' objections. Obama is responsible for pushing the most instrusive and expansive government agenda since FDR. So, when the DOE sends a lesson plan to schools that "suggests" teaching methods including discussing or writing about how students can help the President, the whole thing smells like Big Brother. Combine that with the Obama cult of personality and it's more than a little creepy.

Precisely. This is what had people up in arms. It is interesting how the media, for the most part, ignored this real concern and presented things to make it appear that parents were objecting to the speech itself. I also note that there has been almost no coverage of the Commie advisors resignation effective midnight Sunday.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Maximus

[softwareNerd]

Precisely. This is what had people up in arms. It is interesting how the media, for the most part, ignored this real concern and presented things to make it appear that parents were objecting to the speech itself.

In addition, the furor allowed the president to release a speech that was free of anything except the focus on education. Our school district was discouraging teachers from showing the speech. However, after the text was released, they are now encouraging teachers to show it sometime during the week. Parents are allowed to opt out for their kids.

I think the speech is one of which a typical GOP politician would be very proud: a lot of focus on not making any excuses, but getting on with studies, while also pointing to service to the country as one's goal.

[~Sophia~]

I also note that there has been almost no coverage of the Commie advisors resignation effective midnight Sunday.

Wait for the accusations of racism against those who dared to raise questions about this guy.

[2046]

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/09/...ts-broward.html

There is one County where children will be forced to watch the President's lecture under threat of punitive action.

This guy sounds like a sociopath.

[softwareNerd]

I think the speech is one of which a typical GOP politician would be very proud: a lot of focus on not making any excuses, but getting on with studies, while also pointing to service to the country as one's goal.

U thought I ought to correct myself, after reading the school speech delivered by President H.W.Bush in 2001. The former president gave kids a similar message about hard-work being required, but did not tell them to do it for their country. Good for him.

...make it your mission to get a good education. Don't do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future.

According to this op-ed, the Democrats held a hearing to find out why H.W.Bush had wasted $27,000 of tax money on the speech, with the NEA saying the money would be better spent on school lunches!

[RussK]

U thought I ought to correct myself, after reading the school speech delivered by President H.W.Bush in 2001. The former president gave kids a similar message about hard-work being required, but did not tell them to do it for their country. Good for him.

The Reagan and Bush speeches can be watched here: http://www.cspanarchives.org/ . C-Span showed both speeches as a run-up to Obama's speech. Reagan does mention school kids in the future who will "build and renew America." A little different though than telling someone to "do it for their country." Though I agree with much of the things Reagan spoke about, I didn't think it was appropriate for that environment. If I were to choose which of the three speeches was an attempt at indoctrination or an example of a power hungry administration, I would have to choose Reagan's speech.