(1) Parents of concerned children--afraid of indoctrination from a President who unapologetically appoints a radical Communist to his leadership--are mocked for their worry. This is unfair because what the parents were most afraid of was the content of the followup/discussion questions such as, "What can I do to help the President?" It was only AFTER concerned parents spoke up that the controversial discussion materials were removed. Nacilbupera feels these parents are paying attention to their child's education and praises them.
(2) In a story highlighted by Greta Van Susteren, Greta points out the unfair standards of the previous speech by Bush 41 to children: the Washington Post front page after Bush's speech front page story suggested the speech was staged for the president's political benefit. This turned into a Democratic witch hunt and an investigation was conducted to examine why $26K (read here $26K not $26M not $26B not $26T) was spent by the Bush administration "in an era of scarce resources" (Gephardt). In contrast, today's front page Washington Post (see image, left) no such accusations of political malfeasance are made. Nacilbupera condemns such outrageous media hypocrisy.
(3) Final point: it is not the role of federal government to intervene in state affairs. The President could have addressed both parents and children using the internet, radio, or television; the point is he had other options. Nacilbupera feels that pending an immediate catastrophic national emergency (IE nukes from North Korea or Iran are on their way) really, an address to the schoolchildren of the state should be done by the state's chief executive, the governor. Obama's speech to the children is a mis-education in the proper separation of powers between our state and federal government.
4 comments:
Just like the Armageddon that would befall us in the year 2000, the speech that was suppose to indoctrinate our youth. Now who was spreading the baseless lies…..hmm…..oh ya, “Fake News”. Is anyone real surprised? Too funny.
Paul:
Nowhere on this blog did we ever accuse Obama of indoctrination. If you are accusing Nacilbupera of spreading "baseless lies" please be specific and point it out. Otherwise you have a rather mean-spirited, meaningless, vague reference to whomever "Fake News" is--although we feel that MSNBC would qualify.
Nevertheless, had Obama proceeded as originally planned, it certainly would have smacked of indoctrination and we would have called him out on it.
As far as Y2K although we are a devote Christian, we never predicted Armageddon for that year. Indeed, as you brought it up, we are willing to go on record right now as saying that we do not believe that Armageddon will happen in 2012 in conjunction with the end of the Mayan calendar. We further assert our belief that Jesus Christ will return again to earth but feel the time is not quite yet for that to happen.
Thanks for the dropping by; you are always welcome to opine as long as you keep it clean as you did.
I can't blame parents for not trusting Obama. This is the same Obama who has connections with unrepentant terrorist and education radical, Bill Ayers.
RK: Thx for the comment. We really wanted to trust our President but there are so many examples of forsaken trust (including Bill Ayers as you point out), we have no choice but to watch Obama with the eyes of skepticism and point out the mistruths he is propagating.
Post a Comment