Many Parents Keeping Kids Home from President Obama’s School Speech

By Bob Ellis on September 4th, 2009

2009-09-03 19.37.17As in so many areas (taxes, health care, cap and trade, etc.), we are seeing unprecedented outrage from American parents over President Barack Obama’s planned speech to every school child in America.

Fox News interviewed some of those parents:

“I’m waiting to hear from his teacher, but I have told them to go ahead and I’d like [David] to go do something else,” Gordon said. “It’s kind of like going through the children to get to their parents. Children are very vulnerable and excited. I mean, this is the president. I think it’s an underhanded tactic and indicative of the way things are being done.”

But some parents won’t be allowed to “opt-out” their kids everywhere. At least one school district, Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 in Arizona, is not permitting parents to pull their children out of class during Obama’s speech.

“I have directed principals to have students and teachers view the president’s message on Tuesday,” Superintendent of Schools Dr. Arthur Tate Jr. said in a statement Thursday. “In some cases, where technology will not permit access to the White House Web site, DVDs will be provided to classes on subsequent days. I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the president’s message, since this is a purely educational event.”

The White House said Wednesday that the president’s address is intended to be an inspirational, pro-education message to all students at the beginning of the school year. But critics objected to the language of one of the lesson plans, for students in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, which suggested that students “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”

They have even prepared lesson plans for pre-K-6 (preschool?) and 7-12.  Those have been edited since they were released, in the hopes of soothing angry parents a bit and making them less “political.”

With the unprecedented assault on the American way of life we’ve seen under President Barack Obama in just a little more than six months, it’s no wonder people are extremely jumpy–especially where their children are concerned.

We’ve seen this president take over the U.S. auto industry and dictate terms like a foreign despot, and we’ve seen him and his tax-cheating Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner do the same to a huge section of the financial industry. We’ve seen Obama move to provide taxpayer funding to destroy innocent human life in embryonic stem cell experiments. We’ve seen him push a gargantuan “stimulus” bill that not only wastes hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars but also intrudes deeply into private freedom. We’ve seen Obama and h is friends in congress pass an unconstitutional “Cash for Clunkers” program that wastes taxpayer money and destroys perfectly good vehicles. We’ve seen him and his cronies in congress push the biggest tax assault in history on the American people in the form of a fraudulent cap and trade global warming tax. We’ve seen him push an unconstitutional socialist takeover of the health care industry, including components for taxpayer-funded abortion, rationing, shadows of euthanasia, and more.

With so much that is patently offensive to the American way already on the plate, it’s no wonder that even Texas Governor Rick Perry is comfortable with parents keeping their children home from school that day, according to Newsmax:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in an interview with the AP that he’s “certainly not going to advise anybody not to send their kids to school that day.”

“Hearing the president speak is always a memorable moment,” he said.

But he also said he understood where the criticism was coming from.

“Nobody seems to know what he’s going to be talking about,” Perry said. “Why didn’t he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?”

According to that article, school districts in Texas, Illinois, Virginia and Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to school children.

And as you see in the video from Keloland below, it’s a concern here in South Dakota, too.

Stuart Shephard even weighs in during one of his Stoplight videos (below).

Nothing this administration does is not political and not calculated for maximum political effect.

Many Marxist radicals (like Obama’s friend Bill Ayers) have gone into the education field because they realize that it is much easier to make a convert as an impressionable child than it is to have to fight a freedom-loving patriotic American who as an adult understands the pitfalls of Marxism and how precious is our Constitution.

In fact, National Review quotes Ayers in his 2006 speech at the World Education Forum to his “comrades” like America-hating Marxist Hugo Chaves:

[I’ve] learned that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space—what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom?

What does Ayers believe in teaching? As if we had no idea from his multitude of Marxist rants, he makes it clear in this speech what he thinks of our capitalist American system: capitalism promotes racism and materialism, producing mindless “consumers.”

Remember, too, that President Obama appointed a homosexual activist to a key position in the Department of Education, another area in which radicals seek to re-educate American children.

If there was some precedent for nationwide coordinated presidential addresses to school children, it would minimize the concern over this, but to my knowledge that is not the case.

At the Citizens for Liberty group meeting Thursday, great concern was expressed by a number of those in attendance, with some planning to make their concerns known to the Rapid City School Board.

SD Secretary of Education: Tom Oster, 605-773-5669
Rapid City School Superintendent: Peter Wharton, 605-394-4031

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , ,

  • Haggs
    So now that this school speech has come and gone, can we all admit that it was just a Stay In School speech and all this controversy about it was silly?

    Also, this quote from your article was particularly silly:

    "If there was some precedent for nationwide coordinated presidential addresses to school children, it would minimize the concern over this, but to my knowledge that is not the case."

    There is precedence for this in that the last five or so presdients have done nationwide addresses to school children. Reagen did it. Both Bushes did it. I think Carter did it. I'm still looking to see if Clinton did one, but I would assume he did (I was in junior high/high school during that time, but I don't remember). Presidents have used their soap box to get the attention of our nation's youth to tell them to "Stay in school", "Don't do drugs" and "You are our nation's future" for years. Why is this suddenly a problem?
  • After I wrote this piece last week, I learned there hasn't been an address like this by a president since George H. W. Bush...and Democrats actually convened hearings over that.

    The White House modified their lesson plan after the outrage surfaced over this, and we can only guess what it might have looked like if the docile sheep had said nothing about it.

    You might have also missed the fact that Obama peddled his socialism to the kids at Wakefield High School he talked to prior to the speech yesterday. Kept that little bit off the "mainstream" media radar after the firestorm the whole plan created, but it's highly likely that same sort of pap would have ended up in the speech if the American people hadn't protested beforehand.

    And as I already explained above, with the President of the United States perpetrating unprecedented assaults on the Constitution and the American way of life, and with the radicals he hangs out with and hires for his administration, frankly I wouldn't trust him alone with my dog, much less access to my children.

    When parents see a threat to all that is good and all that is proper about our country, it's well within their right and responsibility to protect their children from exposure to and corruption from that threat.
  • morejobs
    This article is so blatantly biased on unfounded that it hurts. The “fraudulent” cap and trade bill? How can you tack an adjective like fraudulent on a much-needed piece of legislation like this? If you don’t agree with the purpose of the bill, that’s fine, but to just toss around negative adjectives because you dislike something is absurd. Regardless, there a great many reasons that we need to pass the clean energy bill this fall. It is in no way a tax. It is a market-based emissions reduction bill fashioned after George Bush Sr.’s highly successful acid rain cap and trade bill. That legislation ended up costing far less than expected and the economic benefits ended up outweighing the negatives 40 to 1. The clean energy bill now before the senate will reduce air pollution (thereby reducing the respiratory illness), reduce our dependence on foreign oil, prevent the worst impacts of global warming, and stimulate our economy. The clean energy industry in SD has been growing extraordinarily rapidly (98% from 1998-2007). If we can keep this growth going with the clean energy bill perhaps we can get out of the economic mess we’re in. Please support the ACES bill!
  • Yes, the cap and trade scheme is 100% fraudulent. It is fraudulent because it is based on a fraudulent idea (anthropogenic global warming) and does practically nothing to fight this imaginary problem (they estimate it would lower global temperature by 9/100ths of 1 degree over 40 YEARS).

    As to why the crazy idea of anthropogenic global warming is fraudulent, I suggest you read several of the articles compiled here: http://www.dakotavoice.com/tag/global-warming/. This crazy idea doesn't even pass the smell test, much less the test of hard science.

    Finally, you obviously know very little about taxation and economics, or don't want to face the unpleasant facts of why this is indeed a tax. Businesses don't really pay taxes. Oh, the socialists in our government will tell you they're just going to stick it to those evil companies (the ones that hire people, pay wages, provide health insurance and such) with there schemes...but businesses pass along their cost of doing business to their customers, don't they? Oh yes. It's just the way things work in a free economy--even one that is only partially free, as ours has become. So when the business--say, the power industry--gets slammed with these cap and trade fees for being so evil, they'll pay it...and you'll pay 40-50% higher electric bills to make up for it.

    Cap and trade is a 100% ripoff, with the American consumer on the shortest end of the stick--all to pay homage to a silly idea that doesn't even rise to the test of common sense.
  • morejobs
    I cannot go through the entire series of articles you mention debunking every idea they present. However, I can provide two pieces of evidence I hope you will consider. In 2004 an article in Science Magazine reviewed the nearly 1000 peer-reviewed papers published in ISI listed journals with the keywords “global climate change” in 1993-2003. The reviewer discovered that absolutely none of them argued that global warming was not man-made (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). Today, there is not a single scientific body of national or international standing that denies global warming is caused by man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion...). Yes, you will always find a few people disagreeing with anything, but scientists overwhelming support the science behind global warming. There was a time when it was “common sense” that the earth was flat. We relied on scientists to find the truth then, perhaps we should rely on them now.

    Your estimate of the costs of the bill is much higher than any reputable numbers I have seen. The Department of Energy estimates a cap on carbon will cost the average American only a dime a day on their utility bills. That doesn’t sound astronomically high to me!

    A point that is often ignored is that energy efficiency is an effective, profitable means to reduce emissions. DOW Chemical recently invested $1 billion in efficiency upgrades and has already saved $9 billion from them. BP has also saved $2 billion in efficiency and United Technologies has cut their energy use by 45% in just 2 years. These opportunities are not limited to giant corporations, but are possible across the board.

    In short, the clean energy bill is based both on sound science and sound economic policy.
  • No one disagrees with the theory of anthropogenic global warming...except the tens of thousands of scientists who do. Very impressive...and very "logical."

    Frankly, I haven't heard the DOE make that outrageous claim, and if they have, I'm sure they're doing the bidding of their socialist master in the White House. Meanwhile, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, along with PUCs across the country estimate it will increase electric bills 40-50%.

    The "clean energy" bill is a farce, and part of the evidence of that (beyond what I've already mentioned) is that only a small fraction of the money that is wasted, er, raised by this tax will actually go toward clean, renewable energies.

    You seriously need to get off your diet of socialist propaganda, turn on your mind, and realize that the nutty idea of anthropogenic global warming simply holds no water. It's nothing more than an excuse to push Marxism on our free country.
  • We especially have cause for concern given the almost Hitler Youth-like Obamatons that were developed by The One's followers during the campaign.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I don't agree with the reasons stated above on why President Obama speech to schools is unnecessary, but agree that it is not a good idea. If he wants to give a speech on
    'off school hours' , then parents and school age children have the right to watch it or not. Teachers are under enough pressure to cover curriculum material and are on a tight timeline and schedule.Perhaps if the speech were divided among representatives of both parties, then it would be more palatable, but even then some would object, so I maintain encouraging children to value education can be done in other ways.Best to keep politics out of schools.

    For the same reason, it is also best to keep religion out of schools. Children should be free to discuss religion (or politics) amonst themselves during school hours, but never in a formal setting such as class or any other school sponsored event. Teachers should not express their personnal political or religious views either. A public school should never be seen as advocating one political or religious view over another, even if it is a prayer or a brief mention of a particular personnel political ideology at a garduation or any school sponsored program. Freedom of speech and religion have limits.
  • "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." -- 1st Amendment

    Discussing religion, or even praying in school does not violate the constitutional proscription that "Congress shall make no law..." but honors the "free exercise" clause. The way the 1st Amendment is interpreted today could only gain acceptance when the federal government took over education, a clear extra-constitutional seizure of states’ rights. This is one of many good reasons for parents that care about their children, Christian or otherwise, to keep their kids out of government schools until the Dept. of Education is abolished and control of education is restored to communities and, to a lesser extent, the individual States.

    I don't think anyone is arguing that parents and children have a right to listen to what Obama has to say on their own time, just not as a school exercise when the purpose is certainly political in nature.

    "Freedom of speech and religion have limits."
    You cannot give me a single example of anything that the framers said or wrote that would give credence to that assertion, Brian. In fact, all the evidence that I've seen indicates the opposite; political speech and expression of religion are inviolable rights and the founders were careful to write that into the Constitution so as to preempt the designs of future tyrants.
  • Brian Rutledge
    dr theo

    " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ot prohibiting the free exercise thereof " I believe since they did not elaborate further on just what they meant by 'free exercise', that this will continue to be controversial. Did they mean a person is free to choose and worship the religion of their choice without government interference or that a person is free to verbalize their religious beliefs in any setting they see fit? I doubt they believed that a person in a government program, like a public school, has the right to express their religious beliefs
    -like a prayer- to a captive audience. A student sitting in a classroom, listening to someone elses prayer beliefs, given over the intercom or in an auditorium, is captive and being forced to listen.

    Whether it's religion or politics, no six year old should be made to listen to one persons views, prayers etc. in school on these issues..


    You stated that I can not give one example of anything that the framers wrote that would give creedence to my comment that freedom of speech and religion have limits. Well, the 1st amendment also says that the government can not establish a religion. A school , which is a government entity whether we like it or not, can not establish a specific religion. If the prinicipal says a Christian prayer at the beginning and end of every school day, as he did in my elementary school, it could argued that the school is establishing itself as a Christian school. I certainly thought my was until I found out that my best friend was Jewish and had different ideas.That boy was a captive to Christian prayers given by a government employee.

    Yes, I think the Constitution makes it clear that a government employee can not make a citizen with different religious beliefs listen to their own
  • "CONGRESS shall make no law..." A prayer, or even Bible study in school is not an act of Congress. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate what is or is not done in public schools. This is a concept called federalism, which has been forgotten by the Left to the great loss of freedom for all Americans.
  • Brian Rutledge
    dr. theo

    I understand your point about Federalism, but I do believe that when the Constitution's 1st Amendment stated that " Congress shall make no law.....", that it applies to the states as well. States can not make a law establishing a religion.Congress, states, public schools are all government entities. So when the 1st Amendment was written , does it not apply to all government entities ?

    I believe that inherent in the Amendment is that the founders felt Congress or the U.S.government or any of its entities should not be promoting or preferring one religion over the other. A twice daily Christian prayer in public schools is obviously showing preference. The young Jewish boy is being held captive to a religious belief( (Christian prayer) in a government entity. No citizen of the US should have to be held captive to any religion. You wouldn't want that for your child, nor do I.

    You may feel it is the long arm of the government reaching too far, but shouldn't we all never be put in a situation where we are forced to hear anothers religion.I think that basic freedom should be accorded us all.
  • Carrie_K_Hutchens
    The need for "vigilance" is at hand!
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »