In John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech he said, ". . . ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." President Barack Obama, however, every time he addresses the American People, Congress, or even the children of American schools across America, seems to be saying, "Don't just ask yourself what I can do for you, but also ask what you can do for me."
There were approximately 2,673 words in Obama's speech to the children on Tuesday, September 8. Of those words, the word "I" (including its use in contractions such as in the words "I'm" and "I've") appeared 62 times. The word "me" was used in his speech to our children five times. The word "my" was used 11 times. The excessive use of these personal identifiers (I am just glad he didn't begin to talk about himself in the third person, I don't know if I could have kept from regurgitating if he began to call himself "The Obama") represents about 3% of his speech. Surely, some of these words that pointed back to him were not intended to be evidence of his narcissism, but 62 appearances of the word "I" makes you wonder who the speech was really designed to help. Was he speaking for the benefit of the children? Or for his own benefit, and ultimately the benefit of his policies?
To Obama's credit the word "responsibility(ies)" was used 9 times. However, I began to wonder if "responsibility" was being used in the terms of individualism, or as a responsibility to society, government, and the common good. In other words, as the word was used in Obama's speech, are we to be responsible as individuals, or to a collective state of national statism?
Leftists claim this speech had nothing to do with the indoctrination of the kids into their way of liberal thinking, but it was interesting how it was the most liberalistic organizations, and media outlets, that were urging the students, and families, to watch Obama's speech. The press, of course, later claimed there was only a minimal uproar regarding the speech - though I came across many stories of children being kept home, and school districts blocking the showing of Obama's speech to any of the schools in their district (taping it for review, and considering offering a possible voluntary viewing by students at a later date). In truth, the real fears arose amid suspicions of the intention of the speech, and how it may be used for political reasons. What was written between the lines was of more concern to parents, than the actual content of the speech.
As we were promised by the Obama Administration, the speech was indeed about education, and the responsibilities of those involved in education. In fact, in the speech Mr. Obama took quite a bit of personal responsibility for the ailing school system. He came across in the speech as if the failure of our schools has become a personal challenge for him.
The first mention of the word responsibility, in fact, was intended to convey that he uses the word a lot, but especially when in reference to education. Perhaps he wishes to be defined as the "responsibility" president.
Actually, the sentence, "And I've talked about responsibility a lot," is nothing new. How many times has Obama said in speeches, "I want to be clear," and "as I have said many times before?" This is his way, I believe, in making sure you understand this is nothing new, even if it is. The statement establishes consistency. Even if he has never said anything about whatever it is before, by saying something like "I've talked about that a lot," it gives the listener the feeling he is being given information that the speaker has been consistent about, and that the topic or word is very important to the speaker. After all, if you really believe in something, or have a particular affection for something, you would talk about it a lot, right?
Don't forget that "I" appeared in the speech to our kids 62 times.
The next occurrence of the word "responsibility" is in a three-piece block. Obama said, "I've talked about teachers' responsibility for inspiring students and pushing you to learn.
I've talked about your parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track. . . I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards, and supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working, where students aren't getting the opportunities that they deserve." Based on this string of responsibilities, once again he is trying to convey he message that he has been consistently talking about these issues, and that it is clear that there are many people surrounding our children with the responsibility to help the kids get where they need to go.
Barack Obama was correct in saying that teachers need to be inspiring students, and pushing them to stay on track. He is accurate when he tells parents they need to be involved in their children's lives. This is common sense, and has been a part of he discussion regarding education for a long time.
Obama is wrong when he says it is the federal government's responsibility to do anything in regards to education. Does the government have much to do with private schools and home school children? Yet, without government thrusting its "responsibility" into the affairs of these schools, and methods of learning, private schools and home school situations put out results in children scoring higher on the tests to graduate, and on college entrance examinations. Now, if the state government wishes to participate in running school systems, that is completely constitutional. But the federal government not only does not have the responsibility to the education system they seem to think they have, but they don't even have the legal authority to it. In fact, the very existence of the Department of Education is unconstitutional.
And this guy calls himself a constitutional lawyer.
The follow-up "responsibility" in Obama's speech to the children of America places the responsibility of doing well in school squarely on the shoulders of the children. Personal responsibility. Self-reliance. Individualism.
Obama rightly says that "at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, the best schools in the world -- and none of it will make a difference, none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities, unless you show up to those schools, unless you pay attention to those teachers, unless you listen to your parents and grandparents and other adults and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. That's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something that you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide."
I wish to key in on one sentence. He said "Every single one of you has something to offer." Does he mean "offer" in the sense of to themselves, to society, or to the collective hive? There are no clear indications at this point exactly what Obama means, but based on his past declarations of collectivism, and "the common good," I have a feeling that having something to offer has a loaded pledge just waiting in the background.
The next use of the word "responsibility" comes from a little story about foster kids in the toughest of neighborhoods. Often, the best way to drive home a point is to use a story of the most extreme circumstances, and Obama took advantage of that tactic here, finishing with a very good point: "In some cases they've got it a lot worse off than many of you. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their lives, for their education, and set goals for themselves."
How many times has dad told you about how hard life was for him? Remember those stories about him walking to school in the cold of snow, up hill, both ways?
I wonder if Obama is trying to place himself as some kind of father figure to these kids in this speech.
Is he trying to establish the federal government as a parental figure?
Obama finished with stories of J.K. Rowling and Michael Jordan, and other cases of folks that beat the odds to succeed. Once again, very good applications to drive home the point that these kids can surmount the obstacles ahead of them, and succeed despite the hardships of whatever stands in their way. Very benevolent. The President's speech, for the most part, was policy-free, and well written if it was intended to put a fire under the children of America, and push them to do better.
Have you ever heard someone say something without actually saying it? Was there something deeper going on here that was masqueraded magnificently by a benevolent choice of words?
The memory of the bill Obama sponsored as a U.S. Senator, for some reason, comes to mind right about now. It was S.2111, the Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act. Force the children's behavior to be as the government desires, basically, and the schools will improve. Notice these people still have yet to figure out that the problem is their curriculum, and their theoretical educational methods.
To answer the questions regarding Obama's intentions with this speech to the children of America, one must answer an even bigger question: Why did Barack Obama have the presumption that he should commandeer America's classrooms for a purpose that is well beyond his rightful duties as President of the United States?
Could the speech be considered an abuse of his presidential powers?
President Obama is a big government guy with socialist intentions for this nation, but none of the propaganda one would expect from such a person appeared in Barry's speech to the kids. In fact, politics was not even mentioned directly to the kids at all during the speech. As we were told ahead of time, the entire thing was about education, and urging the children to "stay in school."
The message given to the children is an age old message. Parents have been urging their children to stay in school for generations, and teachers have always voiced that message. Growing up I remember after school specials, Saturday morning cartoons, and advertisements geared at kids (usually sponsored by the television network) urging that we stay in school, and do our best.
Maybe Obama thinks the kids will listen to him more than to generations of people from family to teachers to the entertainment industry.
For some, the problem is not staying in school, but the type of education their kids are receiving - hence, the reason more and more children are being home schooled, and enrolled in private schools.
In Barry's defense, he admitted the public school system has problems, and he is willing to toss as much fiat money into the school system as he can (at this point all money spent by the federal government is make-believe money, since they are so deep in debt).
All the money in the world will not fix our ailing public school system. The problem is curriculum. If the problem was money, the private schools would be doing worse than the public school system.
The truth about the intentions of Obama's speech can be found in what was not present, than in what was. What was removed were lesson plans the children were going to be expected to engage in after the speech. The Education Department originally had recommended that students compose "letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals. However, amid an uproar by angry parents and constituents, by the day of the speech the administration had retracted the suggestion.
Obama changed the speech, I bet, to be more about how they can help themselves, than how they can help the president - just a hunch.
Could you imagine if as his popularity began to wane regarding the war in Iraq, George W. Bush gave a speech to the kids of America, interrupting classroom time to do so, and then asked them to write papers on how they could help the president? The leftists would have gone completely insane. References to Bush as Hitler, Stalin, and any other totalitarian leader in history would have been flying everywhere. Congressional Democrats would have been launching investigations on Bush's unlawful use of his power as President of the United States.
The deeper message, however, runs in line with something I mentioned earlier. Throughout Obama's speech he repeated how he, and the government, were working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn.
Remember, according to the law of the land, the federal government has no constitutional basis for interfering with the educational system.
In his speech, Obama was suggesting that the federal government was responsible for the education of the children of America, and that in fact it is the personal responsibility of Mr. Obama himself.
Why would the federal government, and Obama, believe it is their responsibility to be an integral part of the education of the children of this country?
And if Obama is fighting to make sure our kids are properly educated, then who is he fighting against?
If the children of America are being told that the federal government is the reason their education is going to be improved, and that it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure they are being properly educated, what service in return will our children feel personally obligated to give back to Obama and the Democrats?
Why has the government taken such a large role in education? Is it because they believe it to be for the common good? Were the children being told to stay in school because it is best for a collective society?
Remember, liberals believe it takes a village (or a big government) to raise a child. People like Obama believes he is better equipped than you to ensure your children are raised properly, and he is more than willing to do so through the school system.
The underlying message in Obama's speech to the children was that "you need to stay in school, and become successful, so that you can be a beneficial cog in the machine that is the liberal collective hive."
I agree with Obama on the point that children need to be responsible, and do what they can to succeed, but they need to owe their success to nobody but themselves. Then, as the child grows into an adult, the person needs to remember that self-reliance is the key, and a free market is what makes an economy grow. Make your own decisions, be responsible, and always be wary of government officials promising too much. After all, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
You don't have a right to education, no matter how much the federal government does to give it to you. You have a right to choose your education, despite what the government says and does.
John F. Kennedy, in his inauguration speech, said it best: "the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Full text of Obama's speech to schools - Traverse City Record Eagle
President Obama's Speech to Schoolchildren - LEX 18
Schools urge families to watch Obama's speech - Wicked Local Concord
Minimal uproar at local schools over Obama speech to students - The Daily News Online
Obama tries to motivate students with speech - The Los Angeles Times
In emergency meeting, La Mesa board blocks schools from showing Obama speech - Sign On San Diego, Union-Tribune
President Obama's Speech to School Children: The Invasive Abuse of Power - Associated Content
S.2111 - Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act - Open Congress
No comments:
Post a Comment