Obama’s School Speech seen through Democratic Eyes

First let me say to my best friend….the word is spelled p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e.   And thanks for kindly pointing it out.  I was writing in the wee hours of  the morning, Sheesh.  🙂

The democrats are right!  I can hear the ambulance sirens now coming for the hopefully not dead bodies of several of my blogger friends, and my friends who ordinarily take me on about what I write.  I learn much from them.   They always make me think.  And sometimes, though rarely, they are right. 🙂  So I thought for tonight’s little blog about the upcoming Presidential address to captive school children I would take a look at what democrats have rightfully said about past presidential speeches to school children. 

IN 1991 Then President HW Bush spoke to one school.  There were no lesson plans produced for that speech.  The Department of Education didn’t initially suggest that children write letters the themselves about how they could help the President.  This speech was also clearly in violation of my principle that children in school are always a captive audience.  Also, the President can never separate what he does from his office.  So every speech he makes must of neccessity be part of the party line.  It must be political.  Richard Gephardt (D-MO) said “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students.”  The Democrat was Right.  (Distinct sound of more of John’s acquaintances hitting the ground).   There were House Committees that wanted a complete explanation from the Department of Education to explain how its funds were used for the speech.   This committee was right.  The democrats were right. 

Rep.  Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Familieshsaid that it was “outrageous for the White House to start using precious dollars for campaigns” at a time when “we are struggling for every silly dime we can get”  to educate American Children.  The Democrat was right!

So, the dems are right on this one.  An American President should not be involved in making speechs to American schools.  In America we hold our schools apart from the church.  I believe we should hold them apart from the state as well.  Lets remember that there has never been a president elected by 100% of the American people.  Let’s hope there never will be one elected that way.  If it every happens we are truly and well cooked.  We have to remember also that in America we hold our children to be protected from the ravages of politics.  Yes, even something so seemingly innocuous as the POTUS saying work hard, study, graduate and the come work for the state.  Just kidding. 

So as we have seen in this post presidents have made speeches before to school kids.  They were rightfully opposed.  I was against Presidential speeches to captive school kids when the Bushes spoke, when Ronald Reagan spoke to school kids and I oppose it as President Obama is about to make the same mistake.

Here is something great for home schoolers or anyone else who decides to take their kids with them next Tuesday.  Get a picnic basket.  Fill the basket with loads of goodies.  Get good ham, good bread, chocolate, iced tea to put in the basket.  Then go somewhere beautiful and have a reading of the United States Consitution.  Then spend the rest of the day enjoying your most precious gifts; your children.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under home school, home school law, politics, President Obama, Uncategorized

2 responses to “Obama’s School Speech seen through Democratic Eyes

  1. kennM

    Congratulations are in order for the spelling of “principle.” That was a great start to your blog. After that, well ….

    First of all, Bush’s address wasn’t to one classroom, it was an address to the students of the nation (though admittedly somewhat less formally than Tuesday’s speech will be). Bush even began his talk by referring to the “millions of students” who are watching.

    The response then? Republicans defended the right of the president to address students. “Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?” asked Newt Gingrich, who was then the House Republican whip.

    The response from the Republicans now? “That Socialist is trying to indoctrinate my kid. I’m going to keep my kids home that day. I’m going to picket the school. I’m going to call the school board and make a fool of myself. I’m going to hold my breath and stomp my feet till I get my country back.”

    Granted, the Democrats had a few things to say in 1991, too. But outrage like this? Hardly. Americans were less polarized then. We were more reasonable. We were less likely to make mountains of molehills.

    John, you’ve been a teacher for 30 years. During that time, did you ever invite a guest speaker to your classroom? Did you ever ask an “outsider” to offer your students a different point of view? If so, were you students a “captive audience”? For that matter, are they a captive audience every day that YOU are standing in front of the room? Of course they are. And I’m not being disingenuous when I say I don’t see a difference.

    Before you accuse me of missing the point of your blog, let me assure you that I understand that you would be opposed to ANY president speaking to the kids. But can you honestly tell me that the outrage from Republicans would be the same if it were Bush — or the nearly sainted Reagan — who was going to speak to the kids and encourage them to stay in school? Why, you’d be accused of being un-American if you suggested that the students shouldn’t hear the wise words of either of these men. That’s the truth, and you know it, too.

  2. CoolBeans

    “This speech was also clearly in violation of my principle that children in school are always a captive audience. Also, the President can never separate what he does from his office. So every speech he makes must of neccessity be part of the party line. It must be political. ”

    Did you read the speech? I did. Didn’t look too political for me. That is of course unless telling kids to stay in school and not to rely on becoming a sports star/rapper is political.

    Also the Richard Gephardt quote is taken out of context. If you read the full quote, he says he does not have a problem with a president talking to kids about staying in school but does have an issue if he uses the Department of Education to promote political agendas.

    Lastly what happened with the Bush speech in the 90’s is nothing compared to the BS we hear about Obama indoctrinating the youth. What we had was an oversight committee which wanted to know what the funds were being used for. To me that makes more sense then telling your kids yo stay home or talks of brainwashing our kids.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s