Thursday, September 03, 2009

The Facts Behind Barack Obama's Proposed Direct Presidential Address To American Schoolchildren On September 8th; Should Parents Keep Their Kids Out?

On September 8th, 2009, at 12 Noon Eastern Time, Barack Obama will do something not known to have been done by any previous American President. He will deliver a 20-minute address to schoolchildren all over the United States. The details of this are posted on the U.S. Department of Education website. I've seen no local Alaska media coverage of this so far.

On the surface, this would seem like a marvelous idea. A sitting President attempting to connect directly with our rising young generation, striving to make himself and his vision directly relevant to them, even though they cannot "repay" him by voting for him at the ballot box. It gives all the appearance of a "selfless act".

However, a number of Americans think differently. Many believe Obama wants to use this opportunity as an excuse to indoctrinate impressionable kids with a "socialist" agenda. Much of the opposition to the speech has actually coalesced in Utah, where an elementary school principal in Farmington unwisely chose to show a motivational video entitled "I Pledge" to a group of students. This despicable video showed a bunch of trashy Hollywood celebrities engaging in Obama worship; at one point, you will see a hideously overtattooed circus freak kissing his biceps and rhapsodizing about wanting to be a "servant to Obama". This evokes memories of German citizens wanting to be "servants to Hitler", or Soviet citizens wanting to be "servants to Stalin". Watch the video, embedded below, and see for yourself.

The showing of this video has generated a huge backlash along the Wasatch Front, and the school principal ended up publicly apologizing for it. Nonetheless, the furor continues, and a national campaign to get parents to hold their kids out of school in protest of Obama's address on September 8th, referred to as a Parentally Approved Skip School (PASS) day, has taken root. Even popular conservative talk show host Glenn Beck has given it his endorsement.

As a matter of fact, a proposed model absence excuse has been posted on Free Republic for parents to use:

But does Obama really intend to indoctrinate our kids with a "socialist" agenda? According to the Department of Education website, Obama's 20-minute speech will focus on persisting and succeeding in school. Obama will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. Suggested classroom activities have also been compiled (K-6 HERE, 7-12 HERE).

Anyone care to explain to me how that's a "socialist" agenda?

The point is there is a difference between a partisan Obama-worshipping video cut by a bunch of trashy, reprobate Hollywood celebrities and an official Presidential address. To assume that Obama will automatically indoctrinate kids with socialism because of an Obama-worshipping video is an overreaction. The tactic of holding kids out of school for political purposes should not be used indiscriminately and should be reserved only for the most serious issues. Holding kids out of school on the annual Day of Silence is appropriate, because the underlying goal of the Day of Silence is the promotion and protection of the homosexual lifestyle as well as the recruitment of impressionable youth to the homosexual cause.

Holding kids out of school merely to protest a Presidential address constitutes the frivolous use of this tactic.

As social conservatives, we need to switch from "reformer" mode to "revolutionary" mode. Reformers run away and hide from problems; revolutionaries step forward and confront problems directly. We need to follow the example of the hundreds of "Redshirts" who boldly stepped forward to confront the Anchorage Politburo and stopped them from imposing the homosexual agenda upon Anchorage over the heads of the majority who oppose it by filibustering it into the Dan Sullivan administration so that Sullivan could veto it.

A more revolutionary approach to Obama's address was suggested on Free Republic. A poster wrote, “Instead of keeping the kids at home parents should go to school WITH their children and make sure that the indoctrination doesn’t happen. That is exactly what I will be doing. I’ll sit in my child’s classroom during the address and any discussion and I will be prepared with facts and information to better inform the teacher and students as needed. Why run away when you can meet this head on. I’ll correct all of the misinformation given during the address and I’ll reach more than just my kid, I’ll reach the whole class. Bring it on.”

While this solution is not available to every parent because most parents must work for a living, it would take only a few following this example to make an impact. We must quit running away from our schools and take them back. Remember, they are OUR schools - OUR taxes pay for them. The Anchorage School District does not belong to Carol Comeau - it belongs to US.

The time for reform is long past; the time for revolution is at hand. On September 8th, don't run away from our schools by holding our kids out.


  1. wow - what planet do you live on? Since when is a message to kids that they care about the world they live in, to participate in what is clearly their future existence bad? How is the message in the video different than JFK's call to ask what you can do for your country?

    Get over yourself. We have serious issues and the sooner we begin to make those small changes pledged in the video, the sooner our children and grandchildren can.

    Stop seeing socialist devils everywhere you look. Caring for the less fortunate and being responsible citizens isn't socialistic; it all American.

  2. It isn't bad to encourage kids to care about the world they live in rakiel. It is bad to use kids to push an agenda. It is bad to subvert parental influence. It is bad to instill a sense of dependency on what others think of them before an age at which they are able to put an appropriate context around it (called parenting on this planet).
    The video is different because Kennedy's audience wasn't a captive one. It's different because Kennedy's target audience was not primary age children, but adults. It's different because Kennedy's speech was broadcast but not forced. It is different because Kennedy's speech was an inaugural address, not a fatherly pep-talk.
    I agree that throwing around the term "socialism" does more to polarize than to unite, but is the type of unity you seem to advocate to be found in serving Barack Obama?" Do you truly think it's accidental that the Hollywood video began running a mere month before this "official Presidential address" as I heard it referred to in another piece?
    There was one pledge I did feel resonate with me. Perhaps you would do well to let it sink in.
    "I pledge to commit to my own change before I ask others to change." Of course, telling everyone about your selfless good-deed-doing is a bit self-serving, no? Obama needs to focus more on leading our nation in a time of economic crisis and an expanding war in Afghanistan. If he wanted to be a motivational speaker, he should have stayed in Chicago.