It seems ACORN has branched out more than first thought. It turns out they also do tax 'consultation'; dispensing advice, it seems, on how to defraud the government via tax evasion. My first thought on this - um, aren't they funded by tax dollars? Seems a little self-defeating, but whatever.
The real story isn't the evasion advice, illegal though it may be; it's the bland acceptance, not to mention complicity, of the outrageous story they were told that is the real outrage. The first tapes to be released were from the Baltimore, MD ACORN office.
These two investigative journalists (a term you don't hear too often these days) posed as a hooker and her pimp, trying to buy a house in order to bring over underaged girls from El Salvador to force them into prostitution. They needed a tax return in order to apply for a home loan, and were given advice on what code to use when filing. Voila! Our intrepid prostitute became a 'performing artist'.
She was also given a nice little pep talk about not getting down on herself about being a hooker. She should be proud of herself; after all, it's not like she's breaking the law or anything!
But that's not the kicker. Not by a long shot. The whole point of this investigation was to see how far they could push it. So push it they did. The cherry on this treat? They told the ACORN reps that they were going to use the money from the underaged sex slaves to fund the pimp boyfriend's political asperations! Seems a little far-fetched, doesn't it? Apparently not to those worldly nuts at ACORN.
The reation to this expose in the MSM has been predictable - they refuse to show the hidden camera footage, but that hasn't stopped them from bombarding James O'Keefe, the 'pimp' in our tale with requests for an interview. This after questioning his ethics! I wonder what Bob Woodward thinks of this line of attack.
ACORN, of course, protests their innocence, going so far as to fire the two women in the video. Rogue employees, you know. They seem to have an epidemic of them. They insisted that it was a one-off, isolated to that particular office. And, of course, they pulled out their favorite, tired old worn out fall-back position.
Interestingly enough, the next day, a second video surfaces (okay, O'Keefe, knowing this was coming - he's read Rules for Radicals - posted it on biggovernment.com), but this time it is a completely different office, this time in Washington D.C.. The advice in this second tape was even more detailed, not just on how to evade taxes and buy a house to use as a brothel for underaged illegals, but also on ensuring our favorite Pimp Daddy's congressional dreams.
These ACORN workers, too, were fired. The MSM was still trying to make excuses, but then, this afternoon, the other shoe dropped. And dropped. And dropped. Must be a centipede in the middle of that rotten acorn. Lots of shoes.
Things have been ratcheted up a notch, now, though. It seems they are calling in their political muscle. This is insane. How many hidden camera t.v. news exposes have we seen over the years? I don't recall any reporters going to jail for those reports. Apparently its not illegal when you are going after the big bad bill collector, but when it comes to recording conversations about advice from taxpayer funded organizations on the best way to cheat the IRS, illegally obtain a house, illegally import underaged girls to be used in the sex trade in said house AND claim them as dependents, not to mention fund a congressional campaign with the proceeds of the venture, well, obviously the illegal recording is far more important an issue of investigation.
I think there is a lot more to come with this. Pass the pop-corn and stay tuned!
UPDATE: HotAirPundit has uncovered the City State Attorney who is considering charges against O'Keefe and Giles. The shocker isn't who she supported in last year's election, it's the other cause she has supported for the past 14 years! Make sure you read all the way down - turns out there was an award-winning hidden camera t.v. investigation in 2000. Not a peep about the illegalities of using hidden cameras on that one!
Friday, September 11, 2009
NEVER FORGET
It's hard to believe it has been 8 years since the 9-11 terror attacks. As I sit here and watch the news coverage, listening to the names and the bells, the horror of it all washes over me anew. To this day, I cannot see the people jumping to their deaths from the flaming towers without crying. The fear and desperation those poor people experienced in their last moments hits me to the core. As distressing as those images are, though, I'm glad they are being shown. Anyone who can look at those images and then turn around and call waterboarding torture are obviously not grasping the realities of the situation.
We have all seen the images of the towers on fire over and over, as well as the thick black smoke pouring out of a gaping hole in the Pentagon and the smoking remains in that empty field near Shanksville, PA. Those images are burned into our brains, but they don't give us, 8 years later, the full impact of what we truly lost. Yes, those towers were iconic symbols of a mighty country, but they were, after all, just buildings.
But then, once a year, we see the images that we just can't reconcile. Innocent victims, either by choice or by accident, tumbling out of windows to their deaths thousands of feet below. Did they choose the fall to burning to death? Or was it accidental; people desperate to find a way out through the thick black smoke, stumbling through one of the many shattered windows to their death? Either way, it is an image that haunts us all. Those images are not played nearly as often as the images of the planes hitting the towers, and I'm thankful for a reason you might not expect.
Constant, repetitive replaying would inure us to the horror, as the replaying of the planes hitting the towers has dulled the impact of the act over the intervening years. The images of people leaping to their deaths is something usually seen only on the anniversary, and that restricted viewing keeps those images potent and fresh in our minds. We tend to forget that particular horror, to block it from our minds, so that when we are confronted by it again, it hurts us anew.
And we need to be hurt, we need to feel the pain of that day. We need to keep it fresh, keep it raw, keep that white-hot ember of pain deep inside of us burning.
When our children are old enough (as I feel, this year, that one of mine is), they should be shown those images. Not by schools, mind you, but by their parents. Some teachable moments require the love and understanding of a parent, not the institutionalized, sanitized, impersonal recitation they would get from school. Schools need to teach about 9-11, of course. That goes without saying. Historic events like that should always be a part of the curriculum. But we parents need to open our children's eyes to the horrors the terrorists inflicted upon us in all their devastating realities so that they can then carry the torch.
That torch, lit by the burning ember of our collective grief, must be carried forth by successive generations.
Superimposing the oh so personal face of fellow Americans falling to their deaths on the more general images of destruction ensures that ensuing generations will not be able to shrug off the events of that day indifferently as just buildings that fell down.
Those who lost their lives that day deserve nothing less.
God Bless those who lost their lives that dark day, those who lost loved ones, those in uniform who risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and God Bless America.
We have all seen the images of the towers on fire over and over, as well as the thick black smoke pouring out of a gaping hole in the Pentagon and the smoking remains in that empty field near Shanksville, PA. Those images are burned into our brains, but they don't give us, 8 years later, the full impact of what we truly lost. Yes, those towers were iconic symbols of a mighty country, but they were, after all, just buildings.
But then, once a year, we see the images that we just can't reconcile. Innocent victims, either by choice or by accident, tumbling out of windows to their deaths thousands of feet below. Did they choose the fall to burning to death? Or was it accidental; people desperate to find a way out through the thick black smoke, stumbling through one of the many shattered windows to their death? Either way, it is an image that haunts us all. Those images are not played nearly as often as the images of the planes hitting the towers, and I'm thankful for a reason you might not expect.
Constant, repetitive replaying would inure us to the horror, as the replaying of the planes hitting the towers has dulled the impact of the act over the intervening years. The images of people leaping to their deaths is something usually seen only on the anniversary, and that restricted viewing keeps those images potent and fresh in our minds. We tend to forget that particular horror, to block it from our minds, so that when we are confronted by it again, it hurts us anew.
And we need to be hurt, we need to feel the pain of that day. We need to keep it fresh, keep it raw, keep that white-hot ember of pain deep inside of us burning.
When our children are old enough (as I feel, this year, that one of mine is), they should be shown those images. Not by schools, mind you, but by their parents. Some teachable moments require the love and understanding of a parent, not the institutionalized, sanitized, impersonal recitation they would get from school. Schools need to teach about 9-11, of course. That goes without saying. Historic events like that should always be a part of the curriculum. But we parents need to open our children's eyes to the horrors the terrorists inflicted upon us in all their devastating realities so that they can then carry the torch.
That torch, lit by the burning ember of our collective grief, must be carried forth by successive generations.
Superimposing the oh so personal face of fellow Americans falling to their deaths on the more general images of destruction ensures that ensuing generations will not be able to shrug off the events of that day indifferently as just buildings that fell down.
Those who lost their lives that day deserve nothing less.
God Bless those who lost their lives that dark day, those who lost loved ones, those in uniform who risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and God Bless America.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
PERSPECTIVE
I have been thinking about last night's Joint Sessions speech, wondering what to write about it. The heckler was getting tons of airtime - radio and t.v., Fox and all of the MSM, of course - they were all over that one. No mention of whether the comment was true or not. It was all about manners, wasn't it? They really can't even win that one. Now, I do understand that one was far more egregious, but at least it was true, whereas the booing of Bush over Social Security's impending collapse wasn't exactly founded on truth, so perhaps the playing field was leveled a bit.
My favorite part of the whole thing? It's a tie between Nancy Pelosi's look of outraged horror (maybe she thought she heard 'Nazi') and Obama's reaction - prissy arm-crossing and prim, puckered lips and a terse little 'it's not true' as he twitches his arm in irritation. Very Pee Wee Herman. Biden, like the big, lovable galoot that he is simply hung his head in shame (after taking a few seconds to process what had happened).
And, of course, lost in the whirl over 'LiarGate' (isn't there always a 'Gate' after it these days?) was the comic relief section of the speech. Is it just me, or did it seem like even he couldn't say it without laughing?
All in all, quite a bit more entertaining this time around, which is great, since we've seen this speech a billion times already....
Then I came across this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Daniel Henninger. He is absolutely right. We are wasting time debating health care/insurance reform - something that isn't nearly as pressing a crisis as the economy.
Was the whole plan on the economy, start to finish, merely pushing through Porkulus as quickly as possible and then wait for the unicorns and rainbows to usher in a new era of prosperity?
I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do I think that this will cause Obama's presidency to be the 'greatest failed presidency' in American history? Well, you can only blame Bush so far - the real damage isn't set to hit until late next year or early 2011 - far too late in the game. Let's face it - the teetering economy has been rocked briskly to the edge with the profligate spending spree the democrats have been on since January, which must have caused as much damage as, if not more than, the initial crisis.
This genuine crisis was summarily dismissed in order to move on to the democrat's Holy Grail, health care. They tried to capitalize on the spring swine flu - nothing like a crisis to get work done, eh Rahm? But the crisis was a non-starter and Americans started turning to the bill. After the stimulus and omnibus bills went through unscrutinized, Americans were darn sure going to read something that was going to affect them so much more personally than just in their wallets.
In the meantime, the economy continues to suffer. We've taken our eye off the ball.
I don't care if this may be the destruction of the Obama administration.
I care that this may be the destruction of America.
Monetizing debt, outrageous spending, printing money, unemployment with no relief in sight, no matter what they may say about the stimulus, combined with decreasing tax revenues - all of this is charging us forward towards the brink.
It's time to get back to the real crisis, please.
My favorite part of the whole thing? It's a tie between Nancy Pelosi's look of outraged horror (maybe she thought she heard 'Nazi') and Obama's reaction - prissy arm-crossing and prim, puckered lips and a terse little 'it's not true' as he twitches his arm in irritation. Very Pee Wee Herman. Biden, like the big, lovable galoot that he is simply hung his head in shame (after taking a few seconds to process what had happened).
And, of course, lost in the whirl over 'LiarGate' (isn't there always a 'Gate' after it these days?) was the comic relief section of the speech. Is it just me, or did it seem like even he couldn't say it without laughing?
All in all, quite a bit more entertaining this time around, which is great, since we've seen this speech a billion times already....
Then I came across this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Daniel Henninger. He is absolutely right. We are wasting time debating health care/insurance reform - something that isn't nearly as pressing a crisis as the economy.
Was the whole plan on the economy, start to finish, merely pushing through Porkulus as quickly as possible and then wait for the unicorns and rainbows to usher in a new era of prosperity?
I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do I think that this will cause Obama's presidency to be the 'greatest failed presidency' in American history? Well, you can only blame Bush so far - the real damage isn't set to hit until late next year or early 2011 - far too late in the game. Let's face it - the teetering economy has been rocked briskly to the edge with the profligate spending spree the democrats have been on since January, which must have caused as much damage as, if not more than, the initial crisis.
This genuine crisis was summarily dismissed in order to move on to the democrat's Holy Grail, health care. They tried to capitalize on the spring swine flu - nothing like a crisis to get work done, eh Rahm? But the crisis was a non-starter and Americans started turning to the bill. After the stimulus and omnibus bills went through unscrutinized, Americans were darn sure going to read something that was going to affect them so much more personally than just in their wallets.
In the meantime, the economy continues to suffer. We've taken our eye off the ball.
I don't care if this may be the destruction of the Obama administration.
I care that this may be the destruction of America.
Monetizing debt, outrageous spending, printing money, unemployment with no relief in sight, no matter what they may say about the stimulus, combined with decreasing tax revenues - all of this is charging us forward towards the brink.
It's time to get back to the real crisis, please.
Monday, September 7, 2009
HOW INDEED, MR. RANGEL?
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) recently made a comment that I actually agree with, but not exactly the way he meant it.
"Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, 'How did this happen?' " Rangel said, according to the New York Post.
Yes, Rep. Rangel, you are absolutely right. I DO go to sleep wondering 'How did this happen?'.
How did a radical, far-left SOCIALIST with seriously questionable associates become President of the United States? How did said socialist then manage to install a secondary government, unaccountable to our constitutional checks and balances, fund it and then man it with a rogues gallery of radicals, socialists and even a communist or two?
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!
"Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, 'How did this happen?' " Rangel said, according to the New York Post.
Yes, Rep. Rangel, you are absolutely right. I DO go to sleep wondering 'How did this happen?'.
How did a radical, far-left SOCIALIST with seriously questionable associates become President of the United States? How did said socialist then manage to install a secondary government, unaccountable to our constitutional checks and balances, fund it and then man it with a rogues gallery of radicals, socialists and even a communist or two?
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!
THE "VICIOUS SMEAR CAMPAIGN"
I've been watching the MSM spin on the Van Jones situation, and I have to say, it's just appalling. I knew, when I first read his resignation statement, that the MSM would take his 'vicious smear campaign' line and run with it. They are desperately trying to turn him into a martyr to the Obama Agenda. Using the 'vicious smear campaign' angle is simply laughable. And if you want to discuss 'vicious smear campaigns', I personally would point to the devastating attacks on Sarah Palin and her entire family that were not only cruel, but underhanded and untrue. Van Jones was brought down by his own words, both written and spoken.
Let's take a look at those unfounded smears, shall we?
Let's start with the accusation that sparked the whole firestorm - Jones is a self-avowed Communist. This was the original talking point from Glenn Beck about Jones - how did we end up with a communist advising the president? The MSM is refuting this claim of communism, saying he never claimed he was a communist. Not only did he proudly proclaim he was a communist, but he has never walked back from that claim, or insinuated that he is no longer one. Considering how open and public he was about his radical views, one would assume that if he had a change of heart, he would have been just as public about it, especially if it was politically expedient to do so.
Now to one of the more minor charges against him - he called Republicans a-holes. Now, that is crude, rude and impolitic, but it is a relatively minor transgression. After all, just about every politician has called the opposition a crude name at least once, especially when they feel comfortable with the crowd they are speaking to, as he most certainly was, judging by the cheers that greeted his pronouncement. The only thing that surprises me is that he must have known he was being videotaped, and so should have used a bit more discretion, but, when one is in an echo chamber, one often forgets there is a larger world beyond it. Especially since this was only 5 months ago and he was already eyeing a post in the administration - the supposedly most bi-partisan administration evah!! That the MSM is jumping all over this as a main reason he had to step down is because it makes it all seem so petty and ridiculous - this fine man had to step down because of this? How thin skinned can conservatives be? Get a grip, neo-cons!
Let's leave that minor pettiness behind and get to the real meat of the argument (excuse me, 'vicious smear campaign') against Jones. Let's look at his ideas about 9/11. First, there is his signing of the 9/11 Truth Document. The spin on this one is that he says the petition "didn't reflect his views" - and besides, he didn't "carefully review" the petition. Let's take a moment to remember that the man is a lawyer as we digest these claims of his. Every lawyer worth his salt knows you never sign anything without careful review. A quick glance at the 9/11 Truth Document website makes it pretty clear what it is all about. His response to this scandal is so lame that it doesn't even deserve the title 'spin'.
Another little-known action of his regarding 9/11 is even more appalling. On Sept. 12, 2001, he "led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of "U.S. imperialism" around the world." This alone should have kept him from holding public office, be it elected or appointed. This is a man who has a seriously flawed view of this country and should never be allowed to dictate policy of any kind.
Here's another little-known fact: Jones, until recently, sat on the board of the 'Apollo Alliance' - a cabal made up of labor, business, environmental and community leaders who, ultimately, were put in charge of writing the Porkulus bill AND Cap and Trade. BTW, the founders of the Apollo Alliance are Van Jones, Wade Rathke (co-founder of ACORN), and Jeff Jones, William Ayers' co-founder of the Weather Underground. Lovely. A veritable trifecta of radicals.
Here are some more of Jones' greatest hits:
In 2006, Jones signed another petition - this one calling for nationwide 'resistance' to police.
Equating George W. Bush with a crack head.
Accusing white polluters of purposefully directing pollution to minority neighborhoods.
Accusing white farmers of intentionally 'poisoning' minority workers.
But his most alarming statements and campaigns have to do with his radical communist agenda:
He was a main speaker at an anti-government rally in 2002, sponsored by the Revolutionary Communist Party, that urged 'resistance' against the US government, with the ultimate goal being the overthrow of our current government, followed by the the installation of a communist dictatorship.
How will this be accomplished, you ask? Easy. It's all about 'Minimum Goals and Maximum Goals'. According to Mr. Jones, revolution moves in baby steps.
He is also quite anti-capitalist. He feels that the system that has made this country, over the past 233 years, the most successful, wealthiest (our poverty level is middle class for much of the rest of the world), influential, generous, free nation in the history of the world is fatally flawed, and his preferred method of government - communist dictatorship, which has been proven over and over again to not work, impoverishes it's citizens (think Soviet bread lines), restricts their freedoms and destroys their standing in the world.
I think the point of people like Mr. Jones is that instead of bringing up third world countries through free market trade so that they can compete with America, they would prefer to bring America down to the third world level instead. I, personally, am damn proud to live in the greatest country on earth, and I think that, considering the amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who flock to our shores, I'm not alone.
Bring them up to our level, Mr. Jones, don't cast us down to theirs.
There are so many questionable things about this man, so much that has made the news. But, especially in light of what the left put Sarah Palin through, are these things 'vicious smears'?
I think not.
Yet again the mainstream media has given up it's journalistic integrity and ethics in favor of water carrying for the democrat party.
Let's take a look at those unfounded smears, shall we?
Let's start with the accusation that sparked the whole firestorm - Jones is a self-avowed Communist. This was the original talking point from Glenn Beck about Jones - how did we end up with a communist advising the president? The MSM is refuting this claim of communism, saying he never claimed he was a communist. Not only did he proudly proclaim he was a communist, but he has never walked back from that claim, or insinuated that he is no longer one. Considering how open and public he was about his radical views, one would assume that if he had a change of heart, he would have been just as public about it, especially if it was politically expedient to do so.
Now to one of the more minor charges against him - he called Republicans a-holes. Now, that is crude, rude and impolitic, but it is a relatively minor transgression. After all, just about every politician has called the opposition a crude name at least once, especially when they feel comfortable with the crowd they are speaking to, as he most certainly was, judging by the cheers that greeted his pronouncement. The only thing that surprises me is that he must have known he was being videotaped, and so should have used a bit more discretion, but, when one is in an echo chamber, one often forgets there is a larger world beyond it. Especially since this was only 5 months ago and he was already eyeing a post in the administration - the supposedly most bi-partisan administration evah!! That the MSM is jumping all over this as a main reason he had to step down is because it makes it all seem so petty and ridiculous - this fine man had to step down because of this? How thin skinned can conservatives be? Get a grip, neo-cons!
Let's leave that minor pettiness behind and get to the real meat of the argument (excuse me, 'vicious smear campaign') against Jones. Let's look at his ideas about 9/11. First, there is his signing of the 9/11 Truth Document. The spin on this one is that he says the petition "didn't reflect his views" - and besides, he didn't "carefully review" the petition. Let's take a moment to remember that the man is a lawyer as we digest these claims of his. Every lawyer worth his salt knows you never sign anything without careful review. A quick glance at the 9/11 Truth Document website makes it pretty clear what it is all about. His response to this scandal is so lame that it doesn't even deserve the title 'spin'.
Another little-known action of his regarding 9/11 is even more appalling. On Sept. 12, 2001, he "led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of "U.S. imperialism" around the world." This alone should have kept him from holding public office, be it elected or appointed. This is a man who has a seriously flawed view of this country and should never be allowed to dictate policy of any kind.
Here's another little-known fact: Jones, until recently, sat on the board of the 'Apollo Alliance' - a cabal made up of labor, business, environmental and community leaders who, ultimately, were put in charge of writing the Porkulus bill AND Cap and Trade. BTW, the founders of the Apollo Alliance are Van Jones, Wade Rathke (co-founder of ACORN), and Jeff Jones, William Ayers' co-founder of the Weather Underground. Lovely. A veritable trifecta of radicals.
Here are some more of Jones' greatest hits:
In 2006, Jones signed another petition - this one calling for nationwide 'resistance' to police.
Equating George W. Bush with a crack head.
Accusing white polluters of purposefully directing pollution to minority neighborhoods.
Accusing white farmers of intentionally 'poisoning' minority workers.
But his most alarming statements and campaigns have to do with his radical communist agenda:
He was a main speaker at an anti-government rally in 2002, sponsored by the Revolutionary Communist Party, that urged 'resistance' against the US government, with the ultimate goal being the overthrow of our current government, followed by the the installation of a communist dictatorship.
How will this be accomplished, you ask? Easy. It's all about 'Minimum Goals and Maximum Goals'. According to Mr. Jones, revolution moves in baby steps.
He is also quite anti-capitalist. He feels that the system that has made this country, over the past 233 years, the most successful, wealthiest (our poverty level is middle class for much of the rest of the world), influential, generous, free nation in the history of the world is fatally flawed, and his preferred method of government - communist dictatorship, which has been proven over and over again to not work, impoverishes it's citizens (think Soviet bread lines), restricts their freedoms and destroys their standing in the world.
I think the point of people like Mr. Jones is that instead of bringing up third world countries through free market trade so that they can compete with America, they would prefer to bring America down to the third world level instead. I, personally, am damn proud to live in the greatest country on earth, and I think that, considering the amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who flock to our shores, I'm not alone.
Bring them up to our level, Mr. Jones, don't cast us down to theirs.
There are so many questionable things about this man, so much that has made the news. But, especially in light of what the left put Sarah Palin through, are these things 'vicious smears'?
I think not.
Yet again the mainstream media has given up it's journalistic integrity and ethics in favor of water carrying for the democrat party.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
THE SCHOOL CHILDREN SPEECH
On Tuesday President Obama will be speaking to the school children of the country. There are many outraged parents, and a lot of talk about whether to allow their children to attend school that day. It has reached the point where my local high school called to notify parents that they could excuse their children (have them do other activities), provided they write a note. I myself have been asked over the past week if I would send my kids to school.
Yes, I am.
I think, first and foremost, that my children are informed enough to listen and question on their own (I've had to urge restraint on my youngest, however!). I also feel that the speech itself will be pretty vanilla - mostly about staying in school and getting good grades, setting goals and achieving them, and going to college. All things I try to teach my own children.
There may, however, be stuff about 'service' to the community, which I will talk to my children about. Service to your community is a commendable thing, but it should be a personal choice, not something mandated by the state.
The thing that truly gives me pause is the worksheets that have been proposed. I'm not thrilled with the section titled 'Before the Speech'. The students are asked a series of questions, the last of which asks, "Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of Congress or governors? Why is what they say important?"
I would have less issue with these questions if they were followed with 'Why is it important for our elected officials to listen to the people? Why is what they say important, too?' This is, after all, a representative democracy form of government, and our elected officials should, ideally, do the bidding of the majority. Since I can count on the school system to drop the ball on pointing this out, I will, of course, supplement my children's education so that they understand how their government works (or, at least, how it's supposed to).
To me, the grade 7-12 worksheets were a bit more troubling, mostly because if you look at the style of the questions, some of them almost seem like polling questions. "What are the three most important words of the speech? Rank them" After all, grades 10th -12th will be of voting age in 2012, so why not focus group them now, hmmm?
What really has people freaked out, in my opinion, is the fact that he is addressing all of the school children in the nation. Considering some of the liberal ideas about training children from a young age to support their social causes and political agenda, conservatives are understandably concerned. However, Reagan himself did something similar back in 1988, and was actually quite partisan, discussing such conservative values as low taxes, the greatness of America and the American vision of self-government. It was broadcast to schools nationwide, and barely got a blip on the radar. One can only assume this is so because most of America (certainly the conservative middle) holds those same values, but have recently become suspicious of the socialistic bent of the current administration. Thus the 'Conservative Freak-Out".
My question on this is: Are conservative parents concerned about the 'indoctrination' of their own children, who most likely would listen with skepticism due to hearing their parent's opinions, or the children of the 'mushy middle'?
These children are the largest block, and most likely to not have a political opinion due to their parents political indifference (yes, it seems that lately everyone is political, but it's truly surprising how many people are still politically asleep) and so would not recognize indoctrination when they are subjected to it. That is most likely the deeper fear for conservatives, and one that is well founded.
This fear was brought out on the liberal side back in 1991, when George H.W. Bush spoke from a Washington middle school. Naturally, it wasn't labelled 'hysteria' back then. This event, according to Dick Gephardt (D-MO) was "paid political advertising", and caused quite a bruhaha. There was much talk also of wasting precious education funding - a theme the MSM of today should have examined, considering the financial crisis and budget deficits facing our schools. The fact that they do not is just par for the far-left slanted course.
Let's face it - millions of school children look up to President Obama. He has achieved much, and is an example for at-risk kids everywhere, who desperately need a role model who advocates perseverance, achieving goals and thinking big. He is living proof that this is a land of opportunity where one can achieve almost anything, and that is definitely a lesson all our children should learn.
It's just too bad that, if he is successful in implementing his agenda, mediocrity will be the order of the day.
This speech seems innocuous enough - to keep my children out of school because of it seems a little petty to me.
That doesn't mean, however, that I won't be paying attention, reading the transcript, talking to my children and scrutinizing any future speeches he (or any politician, for that matter) aims at my kids.
Yes, I am.
I think, first and foremost, that my children are informed enough to listen and question on their own (I've had to urge restraint on my youngest, however!). I also feel that the speech itself will be pretty vanilla - mostly about staying in school and getting good grades, setting goals and achieving them, and going to college. All things I try to teach my own children.
There may, however, be stuff about 'service' to the community, which I will talk to my children about. Service to your community is a commendable thing, but it should be a personal choice, not something mandated by the state.
The thing that truly gives me pause is the worksheets that have been proposed. I'm not thrilled with the section titled 'Before the Speech'. The students are asked a series of questions, the last of which asks, "Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of Congress or governors? Why is what they say important?"
I would have less issue with these questions if they were followed with 'Why is it important for our elected officials to listen to the people? Why is what they say important, too?' This is, after all, a representative democracy form of government, and our elected officials should, ideally, do the bidding of the majority. Since I can count on the school system to drop the ball on pointing this out, I will, of course, supplement my children's education so that they understand how their government works (or, at least, how it's supposed to).
To me, the grade 7-12 worksheets were a bit more troubling, mostly because if you look at the style of the questions, some of them almost seem like polling questions. "What are the three most important words of the speech? Rank them" After all, grades 10th -12th will be of voting age in 2012, so why not focus group them now, hmmm?
What really has people freaked out, in my opinion, is the fact that he is addressing all of the school children in the nation. Considering some of the liberal ideas about training children from a young age to support their social causes and political agenda, conservatives are understandably concerned. However, Reagan himself did something similar back in 1988, and was actually quite partisan, discussing such conservative values as low taxes, the greatness of America and the American vision of self-government. It was broadcast to schools nationwide, and barely got a blip on the radar. One can only assume this is so because most of America (certainly the conservative middle) holds those same values, but have recently become suspicious of the socialistic bent of the current administration. Thus the 'Conservative Freak-Out".
My question on this is: Are conservative parents concerned about the 'indoctrination' of their own children, who most likely would listen with skepticism due to hearing their parent's opinions, or the children of the 'mushy middle'?
These children are the largest block, and most likely to not have a political opinion due to their parents political indifference (yes, it seems that lately everyone is political, but it's truly surprising how many people are still politically asleep) and so would not recognize indoctrination when they are subjected to it. That is most likely the deeper fear for conservatives, and one that is well founded.
This fear was brought out on the liberal side back in 1991, when George H.W. Bush spoke from a Washington middle school. Naturally, it wasn't labelled 'hysteria' back then. This event, according to Dick Gephardt (D-MO) was "paid political advertising", and caused quite a bruhaha. There was much talk also of wasting precious education funding - a theme the MSM of today should have examined, considering the financial crisis and budget deficits facing our schools. The fact that they do not is just par for the far-left slanted course.
Let's face it - millions of school children look up to President Obama. He has achieved much, and is an example for at-risk kids everywhere, who desperately need a role model who advocates perseverance, achieving goals and thinking big. He is living proof that this is a land of opportunity where one can achieve almost anything, and that is definitely a lesson all our children should learn.
It's just too bad that, if he is successful in implementing his agenda, mediocrity will be the order of the day.
This speech seems innocuous enough - to keep my children out of school because of it seems a little petty to me.
That doesn't mean, however, that I won't be paying attention, reading the transcript, talking to my children and scrutinizing any future speeches he (or any politician, for that matter) aims at my kids.
But, ultimately, this is probably more of an exercise in the Obama administration chasing history again than anything else.
The funny thing about all of this is that this speech was most likely meant as a harmless distraction from the controversy of a week ago about an additional $2 trillion Obama is adding to the deficit.
It certainly blew up into more than just a harmless distraction, but I'd have to say 'Mission Accomplished', wouldn't you?
VAN JONES RESIGNS Updated
Hot off the AP wires comes news that Obama's environmental advisor has resigned.
This was just a matter of time. The administration had to separate themselves from him. Every day had new video footage of him saying something incendiary or offensive. Worst of all, this firestorm of controversy started reigniting past blazes - the names Wright and Ayers had started coming up again. Clearly, the man had to go.
The administration are hoping this will play out over the Labor Day weekend and will be forgotten by Tuesday. They will have the school and joint session speeches to hype and distract with. With any luck, Jones will lay low and not pull a Blagojovich, but you just never know these days. There is also the possibility of him becoming a left-wing martyr to the cause over the coming weeks, thanks to the MSM. I'm also betting Glenn Beck will be making some sort of comment over this turn of events come Tuesday. I have to say that his resignation statement certainly leaves plenty to discuss:
""On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement announcing his resignation just after midnight Saturday. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
He continued: "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.""
He is painting himself as a victim in this - 'They are using lies and distortions...' Really? Weren't those 'lies and distortions' either a)caught on video or b) written in his own words in books and articles? Hardly lies and distortions when they come from his own mouth.
Due to this clown's appearance on the national scene, there are many pundits (not to mention run-of-the-mill Americans) now calling for a review of the many, many 'Czars' that have been given an awful lot of power and money with a frighteningly little amount of oversight. The esteemed Mr. Jones' prolific library of gaffes and agenda-outing has brought public scrutiny of the Czar complex to a head. This may very well signal the end of the czar system - something that is unconstitutional and should not have been allowed to be expanded as radically as it has. And for those who would drag George Bush into the argument (and there are always a few), yes, Bush did appoint some czars - about eight, as far as I can discern - and was soundly criticized for it by the MSM. Mr. Obama has appointed 4x as many as that demon Bush, and yet, nary a peep from the press.
President Obama had a very difficult, embarrassing time trying to appoint Cabinet members and high-ranking officials due to the vetting and congressional approval process. When he was stymied by the legal, constitutional approach, he simply decided to circumvent the process. There are at least 32 czars actively working for the Obama administration. and only 21 Cabinet officials. Many of the czars have powers and responsibilities that overlap cabinet positions, and they all have massive budgets to enact their 'reforms' (Van Jones had a budget of $30 billion). They are answerable only to the president, they do not need to reveal their agenda to Congress for oversight, and the only way to get rid of them is to have them resign or have President Obama remove them from office.
This entire system is unconstitutional. Where are the checks and balances?
It is time to take the administration to task for these czars and demand they all resign or submit to congressional vetting and approval.
It is getting harder and harder to make excuses for the number of radicals, marxists, socialists, and, at least in Jones' case, self-avowed communists infiltrating our government under Obama. It is getting harder and harder to separate President Obama from these radicals and their ideology.
As Van Jones said himself, "Personnel is policy". Either our president is completely clueless to the type of people he is appointing, which I find hard to believe in such a savvy man, or these radical policies are ones he shares. It was allowed, during the campaign, that he sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, oblivious to the man's insane rantings. I'm not sure why it was allowed, as it speaks to Obama's judgement, but allowed it was. Unfortunately, such a gross display of ignorance can only be allowed once, twice at most.
After that, it becomes a pattern, and one that should be used to get a fuller picture of who exactly the 44th President of the United States really is.
Van Jones may very well be the catalyst for that epiphany.
UPDATE: Glenn Beck has issued a statement on Jones' resignation.
UPDATE II: The MSM is managing to drop the ball even more - and boy, does it have ridiculous spin! Bad, BAD internet!!
This was just a matter of time. The administration had to separate themselves from him. Every day had new video footage of him saying something incendiary or offensive. Worst of all, this firestorm of controversy started reigniting past blazes - the names Wright and Ayers had started coming up again. Clearly, the man had to go.
The administration are hoping this will play out over the Labor Day weekend and will be forgotten by Tuesday. They will have the school and joint session speeches to hype and distract with. With any luck, Jones will lay low and not pull a Blagojovich, but you just never know these days. There is also the possibility of him becoming a left-wing martyr to the cause over the coming weeks, thanks to the MSM. I'm also betting Glenn Beck will be making some sort of comment over this turn of events come Tuesday. I have to say that his resignation statement certainly leaves plenty to discuss:
""On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement announcing his resignation just after midnight Saturday. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
He continued: "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.""
He is painting himself as a victim in this - 'They are using lies and distortions...' Really? Weren't those 'lies and distortions' either a)caught on video or b) written in his own words in books and articles? Hardly lies and distortions when they come from his own mouth.
Due to this clown's appearance on the national scene, there are many pundits (not to mention run-of-the-mill Americans) now calling for a review of the many, many 'Czars' that have been given an awful lot of power and money with a frighteningly little amount of oversight. The esteemed Mr. Jones' prolific library of gaffes and agenda-outing has brought public scrutiny of the Czar complex to a head. This may very well signal the end of the czar system - something that is unconstitutional and should not have been allowed to be expanded as radically as it has. And for those who would drag George Bush into the argument (and there are always a few), yes, Bush did appoint some czars - about eight, as far as I can discern - and was soundly criticized for it by the MSM. Mr. Obama has appointed 4x as many as that demon Bush, and yet, nary a peep from the press.
President Obama had a very difficult, embarrassing time trying to appoint Cabinet members and high-ranking officials due to the vetting and congressional approval process. When he was stymied by the legal, constitutional approach, he simply decided to circumvent the process. There are at least 32 czars actively working for the Obama administration. and only 21 Cabinet officials. Many of the czars have powers and responsibilities that overlap cabinet positions, and they all have massive budgets to enact their 'reforms' (Van Jones had a budget of $30 billion). They are answerable only to the president, they do not need to reveal their agenda to Congress for oversight, and the only way to get rid of them is to have them resign or have President Obama remove them from office.
This entire system is unconstitutional. Where are the checks and balances?
It is time to take the administration to task for these czars and demand they all resign or submit to congressional vetting and approval.
It is getting harder and harder to make excuses for the number of radicals, marxists, socialists, and, at least in Jones' case, self-avowed communists infiltrating our government under Obama. It is getting harder and harder to separate President Obama from these radicals and their ideology.
As Van Jones said himself, "Personnel is policy". Either our president is completely clueless to the type of people he is appointing, which I find hard to believe in such a savvy man, or these radical policies are ones he shares. It was allowed, during the campaign, that he sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, oblivious to the man's insane rantings. I'm not sure why it was allowed, as it speaks to Obama's judgement, but allowed it was. Unfortunately, such a gross display of ignorance can only be allowed once, twice at most.
After that, it becomes a pattern, and one that should be used to get a fuller picture of who exactly the 44th President of the United States really is.
Van Jones may very well be the catalyst for that epiphany.
UPDATE: Glenn Beck has issued a statement on Jones' resignation.
UPDATE II: The MSM is managing to drop the ball even more - and boy, does it have ridiculous spin! Bad, BAD internet!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
