posted September 04, 2009 12:40 PM              

however the president speaking to schoolchildren is an age-old practice and i for one would have no more objection to obama speaking than other presidents. what is the big beef about? that a few celebrities made a pro-obama commercial? there weren't any celebrities stumping for the republican party last election?

another storm in a teacup. another incidence of chicken little scaring a few members of the barnyard.

it is good to keep your eyes open. it is not good to run with every fricking rumour that comes out of the anti-obama agenda-mill.

posted September 05, 2009 12:34 PM            

boy...a lot of ugly comments. One woman said straight up that her 11 year old isn't going to listen to that n'word.

jwhop,

You accuse Obama of having certain psychiatric disorders for his wanting to speak to children in schools like the other presidents.

Do those other presidents have psychiatric disorders too?

also....Are you even a psychiatrist?

also how do you get off diagnosing people as having psychiatric disorders just because they don't share your views?

Raymond

------------------
“It is absolutely the perfect name,” Dr. Brown said, given the continuing discord among astronomers and the public over whether Pluto should have retained its planetary status.

In mythology, Eris ignited discord that led to the Trojan War.

“She causes strife by causing arguments among men, by making them think their opinions are right and everyone else’s is wrong,” Dr. Brown said. “It really is just perfect.”

posted September 05, 2009 12:53 PM            

Haven't you ever read this (pathetic) quote??

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

posted September 05, 2009 12:59 PM              

winston was kicked out of the liberal party. the conservatives were about the only opening in town. so in order to do what he believed he was born to do, he went with the option available. of COURSE he WAS a conservative. anyone seen his birth home? or his "cottage", chartwell?

now arabella, his granddaughter, made a name for herself when she was Deb of the Year by openly refusing to take part in some charity ball in america - in protest of the vietnam war and american agression around the world (as well as british collusion in same). because of her family this made MAJOR waves in the news and therefore affected the political agenda in a positive way...

she went on to shun the aristocracy AND politics while still doing charity work throughout her life. married a farmer and "grew her own" for several years till the marriage broke up. put a pile of her money into making glastonbury happen for years on end....did the "noblesse oblige" bit while living in a squat and feeding lots of neighbours. then married a juggler and started a circus whose proceeds went to children's charities including her own "children"s world".

she confessed to having largely given up "being a hippie" and "trying to change the world" but all the same, she did a great deal to change the world without ever holding office, preaching to anyone or flaunting her money round the place. in fact her cut of the churchill pile was pretty small, amounting to a house her mother bought her and some paintings her grandfather left behind...ALL sold to raise capital so she could keep the works going.

posted September 06, 2009 11:39 AM            

However, propagandizing children with lesson plans prepared by the Dept of Education which is illegal...by the way is a horse of a different color. It's even worse when it's known the lesson plans asking school children "how they can HELP the President" and presupposing they are going to be INSPIRED by the President's address..when it's known those lesson plans were prepared in consultation with O'Bomber's White House political staff it got rejected by parents, teachers, school boards and superintendents across the country.

That's where it crosses the line into political propaganda

When the President flatly refused to post his speech in advance so parents could get a good look at what he was going to tell their kids AND when the lesson plans prepared by O'Bomber's political appointees in the Dept of Education and political advisers in the white House became known to the public, that's when the proverbial shiiit hit the fan..And that's when O'Bomber, his political appointees in the Dept of Education and in the White House had to back off...but not before.

Now, here's a lesson plan for those of you who see nothing wrong with an address to school children with a political context...those of you who believe YOU are "educated".

Read the following Amendments to the US Constitution...Amendments 9 and 10.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now, search the US Constitution in it's entirety...from beginning to end...AND find one phrase or concept which gives the government of the United States any jurisdiction whatsoever over "Education".

Good luck.

Saturday, September 05, 2009
Hey A**holes! Obama Wants to Talk to Your Kids
by Doug Giles

First off, I’m not calling you, my patriotic readers, aholios; that dishonor goes to Van Jones, Obama’s self-avowed communist Green Czar, Barack’s sweetheart, 9/11 Truther, and Muslim terrorist sympathizer. By the way, don’t you get the strange yet delightful feeling that VJ’s about to learn what it feels like to tumble underneath an Obama bus? I hope it’s a green one.

Yep, America, you may now add that derogatory label to the litany of other slurs the TOP LEADERS on the Left have been leveling at constituents who do not smoke their political crack. Have these radicals never heard of Dale Carnegie?

That said, as ill-fitting as that tag is for common sense Americans, if there has indeed been an adjustment in our American argot and “a**hole” is now defined as someone who thinks Van Jones’ and Obama’s vision for America is 110% weapons grade bunkum, then in the words of Denis Leary, I guess “I’m an a**hole!” Thank you, Jones . . . you gave me a new theme song.

Matter of fact, if V-V-Van is right and that is indeed the standing slang definition for people who behave in a contumacious way to a socialist’s wet dreams, then I want Leary’s song sung in remembrance of me at my funeral.

Additionally some of you creative dudes or dudettes ought to retool Leary’s lyrics to that song for today’s traditional American rebels and serve it up at tea parties and town halls nationwide. C’mon, conservatives, libertarians and moderate democrats: Own your a**hole-ishness! Don’t be ashamed. Sing with me, “I’m an a**hole!”

Somebody help me here: What has happened to all of the post-partisanship, “I love you, you love me” rose petals O-Town and his boys were going to spread in DC and beyond? This adversarial administration has parted this nation more severely than Willard Scott’s bald patch has the hair on his liver spot bespeckled head. Heck, Barry is losing the ones he formally won in droves.

Let me help you, Mr. President. I know it is not in my best interest to offer you any assistance because of my politics, but the Christian in me wants to extend some divine advice to you. If you want us to buy your socialistic propaganda, you must reel in the commie czars, the unhinged liberal congressmen and women, and the bat crap crazy madam Speaker’s insulting invectives aimed at the actual people you are trying to hoodwink into okaying your America-unraveling desires. You can’t treat us like Ike Turner did Tina and expect us to sing, make you some curly fries, get all giddy about voting for you, or take a shining to you addressing our kids in their classrooms.

Call us common senseis weird, but when a person—president or otherwise—spurns our desires and he and his top advisors wildly misspend our money, mitigate our liberties, urinate on our values, and call us a**holes, Nazis, terrorists, Astroturf and retards, well, said person and his pals will not only fail to receive our respect or votes, but they have forfeited the privilege of addressing our kids—or our dogs for matter.

posted September 06, 2009 12:11 PM              

it really is nasty when the white house takes note of people's objections and modifies their course accordingly.

maybe you should have kept it schtum and given parents the opportunity to sue the pants off their school districts for disseminating lessons outside the curriculum and not vetted with them (parents) first.

the president's address was just as much a bone of contention as the assignment concocted by the dep of education (not the whitehouse) which you say it was all about. people didn't want that "n*****" speaking to their kids, and assumed he would be urging them all to be little socialists and turn in their parents for not liking the president, or some such fantasies.

posted September 06, 2009 02:41 PM            

O'Bomber was asked to post his address to the kiddies..and refused. He only changed his mind about that and the so called lesson plan was revised AFTER the shiiit hit the fan from parents, from teachers, from school administrators and from superintendents...after they got access to the Dept of Education imposed "lesson plans".

So, if it's now posted, that wasn't O'Bomber's intentions at all. He expected to get away with indoctrinating and propagandizing kids without any blow back.

In that, as in most of what O'Bomber has done and is planning to do, he's wrong.

posted September 06, 2009 03:10 PM              

"On a side note, I understand several Harford residents - in addition to the parent mentioned in my story - plan to picket the Board of Ed in Bel Air during the speech, to protest its decision not to show the address in schools. Harford seems to be the only Baltimore-area school system to have gone this route. Most others are leaving it up to individual schools and teachers to decide whether they want to watch it" http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/education/blog/2009/09/president_obama_spe ech_to_stud.html

"Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to tune in."
http://www.theledger.com/article/20090904/NEWS/90904 9984/1005/NEWS02?Title=Amid-Uproar-Polk-Schools-to-Record-Obama-Speech

"We don't (normally) ask parents' permission to allow a politician to talk to their children. We feel that's part of their education. You tell the children politicians have an opinion about things, and here's what an opinion is and how you differentiate from the facts."

posted September 06, 2009 06:28 PM            

We're not talking "Court of Law" here katatonic.

posted September 06, 2009 07:07 PM            

"Overall, 49% of voters say they at least "somewhat approve" of the President's performance. "Fifty percent" (50%)disapprove."

posted September 06, 2009 07:56 PM              

the 2nd set of figures includes only 69% and i doubt very much if they actually interviewed that many people either.

like i said, polls can be used any which way you choose.

posted September 06, 2009 08:03 PM              

"Real patriots get behind the Administration and Congress when the people have decided by election who is going to represent them and show a united front to enemies of America....whatever they may think privately."

posted September 06, 2009 08:47 PM            

Rasmussen IS the most accurate polling organization in the United States...as evidenced by Rasmussen calling the last election percentage results based on daily tracking polls taken during the campaigns.

Pew was also right with them but their polling is done differently and not on a daily basis. The rest were off...some of them wildly off.

Oh, and O'Bomber continues to be a sick, sick, sick man who should get some help. So is anyone else who believes it's OK and perfectly normal to attempt propagandizing American school children.

As far as patriots getting behind presidents and administrations who have won an election; perhaps you should explain that to your friends over at moveon, daily kos, Puffington Post and demoscat underground. You could also tell that to some people here at LindaLand who apparently missed that quote.

posted September 06, 2009 08:50 PM              

a few more choice quotes i have recently come across:

"Hillary has a plan to steal the demoscat nomination from O'Bomber."

This from another author on the differences between republican and democratic policies recently:

"Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is using the idea of global togetherness to promote “a cap-and-trade system” to battle climate change. He said “Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren"

(this is the ticket that your dreamgirl was running on, but when obama talks cap and trade it's treason)

there's more, way more...but suffice it to say that there is an awful lot of bull going down as proven fact. and yes, since i'm sure it will be brought up again, since it seems to be a stock parry; i did wrongly claim that sarah palin was indicted - when i should have said investigated!!

posted September 06, 2009 09:33 PM              

as to the numbers i answered you. are you honestly saying that you thought a vote for mccain was a vote for palin? while i have to admit i entertained the idea he might not last the term, that is a seriously cynical vote. were you, as her campaign manager, planning a coup after HE got elected? or did you think SHE was going to tell him to fly a kite while she ran the country?

posted September 06, 2009 09:37 PM            

I mentioned some of the activists in the White House Teaching Fellowship program here. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/02/obama%E2%80%99s-classroom-campaign-no-junior-lobbyist-left-behind/

And for more on the nationwide backlash, read here. Hope and change! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26744.html

Why parents don’t trust the Educator-in-Chief and his comrades
By Michelle Malkin • September 4, 2009 10:00 AM

They think we’re crazy. “They” are the sneering defenders of Barack Obama who can’t fathom the backlash against the president’s nationwide speech to schoolchildren next Tuesday. “We” are parents with eyes wide open to the potential for politicized abuse in America’s classrooms.

Ask moms and dads in Farmington, Utah, who discovered this week that their children sat through a Hollywood propaganda video promoting the cult of Obama. In the clip, a parade of entertainers vow to flush their toilets less, buy hybrid vehicles, end poverty and world hunger, and commit to “service” for “change.” Actress Demi Moore leads the glitterati in a collective promise “to be a servant to our president.” Musician Anthony Kiedis pledges “to be of service to Barack Obama.”

The campaign commercial crescendos with the stars and starlets asking their audience: “What’s your pledge?”

This same “Do Something” ethos infected the U.S. Department of Education teachers’ guides accompanying the announcement of Obama’s speech – until late Wednesday, that is, when the White House removed some of the activist language exhorting students to come up with ways to “help the president.” Education Secretary Arne Duncan had disseminated the material directly to principals across the country – circumventing elected school board members and superintendents now facing neighborhood revolts.

O’s bureaucrats can whitewash offending language from the Sept. 8 speech-related documents, but they can’t remove the taint of left-wing radicalism that informs Obama and his education mentors. A spokesman maintained that the speech is “about the value of education and the importance of staying in school as part of his effort to dramatically cut the dropout rate.” But the historical subtext is far less innocent.

Obama served with Weather Underground terrorist and neighbor Bill Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge education initiative. Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in Bill Ayers’ pedagogical philosophy. Obama served as the program’s first chairman of the board, while Ayers steered its curricular policy. The two oversaw grants to welfare rights enterprise ACORN and to avowed communist Michael Klonsky – a close pal of Ayers and member of the militant Students for a Democratic Society. SDS served as a precursor to the violent Weather Underground organization.

As investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz reported, Klonsky and Ayers teamed up on the so-called “small schools movement” to steer schoolchildren away from core academics to left-wing politicking on issues of “inequity, war, and violence.”

A cadre of like-minded educators and national service administrators across the country share the same core commitment to transforming themselves from imparters of knowledge to transformers of society. The “change” agenda trains students to think only about what they should do for Obama – and rarely to contemplate how his powers and ambitions should be limited and restrained.

Ayers preached his education-as-“social justice” agenda to his “comrades” at the World Economic Forum in Caracas, Venezuela three years ago:

“This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President [Hugo] Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.”

Ayers continued:

“I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position—and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life—whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!”

This is why informed parents do not trust the Educator-in-Chief and his “comrades.” You can take Obama from the radicals in Chicago. But you can’t take the Chicago radicalism out of Obama.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/04/why-parents-don%e2%80%99t-trust-the-educator-in-chief-and-his-comrades/

posted September 06, 2009 09:50 PM            

Is it that people who don't get behind elected presidents aren't patriotic?
Ummm, would that include members of Congress?

How about Barack Hussein O'Bomber?

Or, is that people who don't get behind elected presidents are traitors?

Same questions as those above?

O'Bomber is a sick, sick, sick man who should get himself some psychological help.

posted September 06, 2009 09:57 PM              

according to that unattributed quote from YOU, you are doing exactly what you accused the left of doing. you are not elected as far as i know to represent the opposition, but you seem to side with the rabble rousers. in fact you either quote them or feed them with lines all the time - who can tell the difference? http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001915.html

posted September 06, 2009 11:32 PM            

And good luck finding me saying the words..unpatriotic or traitors "in that context".

It goes without saying that those who give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States are traitors. That's the Constitutional definition of treason.

Singing from the terrorist hymnal, parroting their propaganda and attempting to throw a war to hang a war loss on the United States IS treason.

Now katatonic, go fish and find where I used unpatriotic and traitor in the context you suggest...as in not getting behind an elected president. Oh, and don't attempt to say what I did say is the same thing. It's not.