I’ve written on socialism, with historical evidence, many, many times – do an internal blog search, read what I’ve written, and that should answer your lingering questions concerning my stance on the evils of socialism and why. You likely won’t agree, but that should resolve the confusion you stated earlier.

If my anti-socialist, pro-America ideology bothers you, there are many statist blogs out there who oppose what I believe. However, my heartfelt feelings are that the path this administration is trying to pull America down is WRONG and dangerous (and before you write a quick response comment asking “why,” please read ALL my posts on socialism/Marxism and the links I’ve provided with each and every post). Socialism is a failed system and America, for all her flaws and problems, is still the greatest nation on earth. Socialism will destroy that greatness.

As far as your statement “because people like you are making them afraid to question their leadership”, you obviously have not read my posts because I ALWAYS question leadership if it hits me wrong – and it is sometimes with Republicans, not just Democrats. Sometimes I agree with our political leadership, sometimes I don’t. With this administration, I usually don’t agree, since it is a 180-degree course from what our founding fathers intended and the provisions of freedom and liberty and limited government in our Constitution. If you’re criticizing me because I abhor socialism, you’re entitled to believe you’re right, as I’m entitled to believe you’re wrong. I can only fight so many battles at one time in a blog, Phil. I’m not a paid journalist, I’m just a regular American who is gravely concerned about the radical agenda of this administration and decided to speak out in a blog. I believe in free market principles and limited government. Yes, I know Social Security and Medicare are government-subsidized (and too late for my blog to change), which is why I speak out on things that have not yet come to pass, like socialized health care. And Obama’s speech with the school kids likely would have had socialist subtext, but because of bloggers and journalists and parents like me speaking out, it was very likely changed to a more Reaganesque speech. Don’t know for sure, but based on this administration’s whitewashing of so many radical elements (i.e., Van Jones), I’m pretty confident that it would have been a more “serve my leader Obama” type speech.

That should put all your questions to rest, Phil. Thanks for your readership and input.

Until we cut out inefficient bureaucracy that both parties are accountable for and guilty of, the Department of Education and government in general are liable to corruption and waste. If you want to improve education, fire the five administrators per school and stop wasting money on NCLB and it subsidiary programs (worthless tests and forced military recruiment, which violates many anti-discrimination laws in certain states and in effect, the Fourteenth Amendment).

Please read my previous responses and several other posts I’ve rewritten on this topic.

This has already been covered at great lengths.

I don’t trust Obama. I think you’re deliberately ignoring that. I never said that a president should never address school kids… I said I have major issues with THIS president, his socialist agenda, and his ideologies. I DON’T TRUST HIM.

So, define the hypocrisy. It would go something like, “I don’t trust Obama, but sure, indoctrinate my kids.” Or, “I DO trust Obama, but I don’t want him talking to my kids.” Hmm. How about “I DON’T trust Obama and I DON’T want him talking to my kids?” Yep, that’s the right one… no hypocrisy evident. You’re being a typical statist, trying to twist people’s ideologies to corner them to accept your left-wing rantings. Won’t work.

No worries… I’ll define YOUR liberal hypocrisy for YOU – you’ve deliberately left out the attacks on Bush for his speech. Wonder why?

Read Byron York’s piece in the Washington Examiner. It reveals how liberals’ attacked GW Bush after his speech, demanding an INVESTIGATION… Sister Toldjah piece this morning has an excellent analysis – here’s a portion:

Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech — they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit. “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’”

[...]

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush’s speech itself, like Obama’s today, was entirely unremarkable. “Block out the kids who think it’s not cool to be smart,” the president told students. “If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they’re stuck in a dead end job. Don’t let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

Also, there’s a thought-provoking piece on GayPatriot by D. Daniel Blatt which asks if the right hadn’t made such a commotion, would Obama’s speech be as banal as it now is? Hindsight is 20/20, but I’d bet a day’s wages that Obama’s speech has had major rewrites, and much of his socialist subtext has been removed, in the light of all this critical attention.

We’ll never know for sure, of course. But that’s OK. Like I’ve said over and over, if all Obama is doing is a nice, motivational message with NO SOCIALISM about “Stay in school, learn as much as possible, don’t be a drug-addict bum,” I’d be OK with that. But, wait… what about my opinion of him? Oh, yes: I DON’T TRUST HIM.

Ha ha ha – you acting like Obama’s being hurt by this “vicious title” is really a crack up. You libs are wacky fakers. You can dish it out and attack Palin and her kids and Condi Rice and GW Bush and Rush Limbaugh but can’t take it if someone says Messiah Obama is a ‘cult of personality’. And this isnt vicious title Wowee wow – it’s ACCURATE. Stop drinking the Obmaa koolaid.

The real nut of the problem is NOT a US president speaking to the nation’s children. The problem is THIS particular president… and if you’ve read any of my Obama posts, you’d be more informed about why. We don’t trust him, we don’t trust the White House’s “Chicago politics,” we don’t trust his radical, unvetted czars.

Have you not read anything here? I don’t trust Obama. I’m not the only American who feels this way. I abhor socialism. It destroys the individual, giving unfettered power to the government, stripping us of our liberties. Obama has demonstrated his lack of love for our nation and its Constitution over and over again. A speech by a president isn’t a problem, but if Reagan was going to commandeer an entire nation’s children for his address, even though I admired and respected the man, I’d still want to know the contents of his speech.

Read all my posts on this. You don’t have to agree, and many Obama admirers honestly don’t understand socialism or why it is despised or that children are the genesis of change for tyranny in a nation. But to take over a nation must be done in small steps. Is this one of them? I don’t know, but I DON’T TRUST THE MAN. I’m not naive, nor are millions of parents and legislators. I’m steely-eyed cautious and suspicious.

I doubt that Obama will do a “heil, Obama!” speech. By now, with the national criticism, I’m sure his original speech (which no one has yet seen) has been massively revised. Additionally, his timing is inappropriate for this, as it disrupts and makes it much more chaotic for millions of students and teachers who are starting back to school on Tuesday. Why did he pick this particular day? As a friend of mine said, “He’s selfish and arrogant and it’s always about him. He doesn’t care if it causes problems for schools.” Obama’s background include community organizing and this is yet another example of it… and what is his hidden agenda, no one knows. If it’s a “stay in school and get an education,” that would be acceptable. But as he’s proven time and again, he often veers off script/teleprompter and starts to talk socialist rhetoric. He becomes a community organizer instead of a president. This is his core, his essence… he believes big government in control of our lives is a GOOD thing. Reagan did not. Therein lies the difference.

Do you recognize this quote? “Let me leave you with a simple message: Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don’t do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you’re at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you’re doing. Write me a letter — and I’m serious about this one — write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals.”

President Bush was also roundly criticized when he spoke to school children, but in comparison, Obama worries me much more. Obama has a proven history of community organizing, surrounding himself with radical people (in their own words thank you) and association with groups such as ACORN and SEIU that I would not want my children influenced by.

That said, I’m sending my daughter without a complaint. She’s smart and opinionated and I think she is better served by hearing what O has to say and discussing it with us, her parents, afterward. After all, this is the 8 year old who asked her teacher about monetary devaluation last year in 3rd grade — the presentation should be interesting if the school shows it.

Either you’re horrifically naive or you’re trying to jerk my chain… either way, it’s amusing.

That is the text of a VERY POLITICAL speech Reagan made to public high school students in Atlanta, GA, in June, 1985.

Both Reagan and GWBush had nationally televised speeches delivered to our nation’s schools, and both had political content, not just pep talks like President Obama’s.

Condemn Ronal Reagan or suffer the curse of your own hypocrisy.

Have faith, AMERICANS WILL SURVIVE !

Obama ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Mike, Mike, Mike. No one is against the value of education, least of all the thousands of teachers and millions of parents who oppose this September 8 speech. It’s insulting and naive that you suggest it.

Answer this: why does the president need to interrupt children GETTING their education for this contrived message? Why isn’t his speech and educational materials available for educators to see and review before he issues it across the lands? Why does he feel compelled to be in front of TV cameras more than any other president in our history? We don’t TRUST him, Mike. He has not been forthright many times before and with his urgency to pass his socialist agenda, pushing it onto kids has been a part of the socialist game plan for more than a century. His mentor Bill Ayers has said many times that indoctrination of children is the best way to accomplish their socialist mission.

If all that Obama does is “hey, kids, stay in school and gain knowledge,” that would be fine. But we don’t know what he’s going to say, and neither do you because it hasn’t been released… and at this point, with all the criticism, I’m sure that his speech has been rewritten many times. The heat is on, and while he is our president, a growing number of those very people who voted for his “hope and change” are stunned by his radical views and are no longer supporting him. It’s not just Republicans, Mike… many Democrats are opposing him. His approval numbers are in the toilet.

WE DON’T TRUST HIM. And as parents, we have the right to not have our children be forced to view his speech. Many of my Democrat friends with children are uncomfortable with this as well.

So, Mike, go ahead and say it’s the Republicans’ fault… not blaming Obama for this lack of trust is par for the course of statists.