It's a bit long (especially for young children) but here it is in its entirety. My comments are below.

Arlington, Virginia
September 8, 2009

The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today.


I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.

Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year.

Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.

I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.

I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And 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 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.

Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.

Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.
I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.

So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.
Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.

I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall.

And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.

Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.

That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn.

Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in.

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.

So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My thoughts

Well, let's start with the positive. There are some really good lines in this speech. For example:

"Every single one of you has something 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."

This is exactly what we tell our kids all the time, it's absolutely true and something all children need to understand. No matter what your challenges may be, everyone has strengths and something to offer.

And then there's this, also a good message in my opinion:

"But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying."

There are other positive messages. Learning from our failures rather than letting them discourage us, and not giving up. Recognizing that learning takes time and persevering in our efforts. Not being afraid to ask questions. The importance of setting goals. All good things, of course. Not necessarily the president's job to tell our children these things, but nonetheless things it doesn't hurt to hear from multiple sources in addition to parents.

However, peppered throughout the speech was a recurring theme of not just studying and working hard, but doing it "for your country." Huh? Who thinks to themselves, "it's for the good of the country" when they sit down to study for a test, or ponder whether to stay in school or not? Here are a few examples:

"If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country."
...

"Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country."
...

"who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best."
...

"What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?"

Am I the only one who finds those statements more than a little creepy? A bit too "you will be assimilated, resistance is futile" collectivist thinking for my liking.

And then there's this:

"So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it."

"I expect"?! As a parent I just find the tone there a little insulting. Kind of like his reference to "parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox." I don't need the president telling me how to raise my children any more than I need him telling my children to work hard in school. It's not his place. Now, it's possible his intention there was to back up the message from parents, so I can give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But did you notice that reference to "country" stuck in there yet again? What's with that?

Study hard... for your country. Stay in school... for your country. Do your best... for your country. Don't let your country down.

Don't get me wrong, there are times when it's appropriate to do things for the sake of our country. I was raised in a military family, and have friends and family members who have made sacrifices for this great nation. But that seems to me a rather "adult" concept. Does it really apply to school attendance and studying?

I studied hard in school because it was necessary to meet personal goals I had set for myself, and because I knew it was important to my future. Had I dropped out of school, I would have disappointed myself, my parents, and probably many of my teachers. But the whole country? Really? That's quite a responsibility to place on children, especially young children.

Is it so wrong to do those things because it's what YOU want to do? For the intrinsic value in it - it's meaning to you personally, not because someone else expects it of you? Because it's in your own best interest? Because your future, and that of your future children, hangs in the balance? Isn't that more important than some nebulous "do it for your country" mantra?

Is this not planting a seed in the minds of children that we should make personal decisions based on what is good "for our country"? Is this not subtly suggesting to our children that "do it for your country" is a valid argument for taking a particular action? That the impact on "the state" should enter into our personal decision-making process, even for matters such as studying?

The "it's for the common good" argument raises red flags for me, as it has often been misused to promote actions that are detrimental to individuals (and thus, harmful to the society despite their claims to the contrary).

Today the appeal is benign enough. Who doesn't think it's a good idea to encourage kids to work hard in school?

But what will tomorrow's request / suggestion / call to action be?

Read full post >>

H/T: The Dana Show

A letter from the Dept of Education to school principals reads:

President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

...

This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong.

Read the whole thing here. Frankly, I don't need the president or anyone from government to tell my children to work hard and study in school. They are already getting that message from me, my husband, and their teachers.



But this is apparently more than just a speech, there are activities outlined for before and after the speech. Exactly how much of our children's educational time do they intend to spend on this little pep rally?

Here are a few of the suggestions for teachers:

Before the Speech:
Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions: Who is the President of the United States? What do you think it takes to be President? To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking? Why do you think he wants to speak to you? What do you think he will say to you?
...

Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

During the Speech:
As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following: What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do? What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

After the Speech:
Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes or stick notes on a butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e. citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.

Students could discuss their responses to the following questions: What do you think the President wants us to do? Does the speech make you want to do anything? Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? What would you like to tell the President?

Extension of the Speech: Teachers can extend learning by having students

Write 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.

Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.

I highlighted a few that I take issue with. Why are they teaching our children that we should listen to elected officials and view them as authority figures? In America, our elected officials work for US, they are supposed to represent us and it is they who should be listening to us, not the other way around.

Perhaps the "ram it down their throats" Congress got tired of hearing "you work for us" at the town halls and the administration thought it would be a great idea to scrub that notion from the minds of today's children?

And perhaps this is all innocent enough... but as American Elephant put it:

...viewing this administration’s track record doesn’t afford such benefit of the doubt. When the President browbeats property owners who want to protect their legal rights… when the President admits he doesn’t know the facts but impugns the integrity of a police force… when the President calls me a liar for reporting what is actually in the health care bills and encourages my neighbors to report me to some enemies list… when the President apologizes to nations around the world and bows to a Saudi king… he loses the benefit of the doubt. As a socialist who has surrounded himself with Marxist and racist radicals all of his life, he loses the benefit of the doubt.

Without benefit of the doubt, the President doesn’t get to speak to my children unchallenged.

Call your child's school, and if they're planning to participate in this, you may want to consider keeping your children home that day.

Read full post >>

It's bad enough that many do not consider unborn children to be persons with human rights (and in fact our current law holds that view). But Obama's science czar, John Holdren, believes that children are not "human beings" until many years after birth.

From CNS News, via John Lott:

President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child "will ultimately develop into a human being" if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being." (emphasis added)

When, exactly, does Holdren believe children become "human"?

Another Obama czar, regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, is a big believer in the ideas of Peter Singer. According to David Martosko, that includes the idea that "animals should have some of the same rights as humans, in fact, greater rights than some people." Peter Singer also advocates "making it legal to kill disabled infants up to 28 days after birth as well as older 'non-persons with disabilities.'" Some quotes:

"[K]illing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

"No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time."

"Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct."

Sources: Princeton University
Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217
The Sanctity of Life, Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2005

And then there's Ezekiel Emanuel's opinions on the lives of infants and young children, as well as individuals with disabilities, deserving less consideration than those of older children and adults (well, before they become elderly, anyway).

All of these people are entitled to their opinions and have the 1st amendment right to express their beliefs. But I find it disturbing that our President would surround himself with not one but several people who hold such views on the intrinsic value of children.

Then again, our President himself has expressed opinions against the notion of the sanctity of life.

To be fair, I do not doubt his devotion as a father to his own daughters. Certainly he loves them very much and wants only the best for them, as any father would.

And yet during the 2008 presidential campaign, he said that if his daughters made a "mistake," he wouldn't want them, "punished with a baby." He also argued against a bill that would have required medical care be provided to babies who survived botched abortions, claiming that such a law would "burden" doctors and women who had intended to abort their babies. The theme running through both of those statements is that he seems to see children, at least those not "wanted" by their parents for whatever reason, as "burdens" not worth protecting.

Does the president agree with the views of his advisors on the worth of children? I really don't know, and I certainly hope not. But if he doesn't, I can't help but ask - why has he chosen so many advisors with such views? And how might those views come to influence public policy in his administration?

Read full post >>

Does Congress not see that they are gradually being marginalized, their power taken and amassed within the executive branch via "czars"?

The whole concept of "czars," presidential appointees that are not under congressional authority but report solely to the president, needs to end. I realize it's been done before, for years actually, but never on the scale of what Obama has done. At last count he now has over 30 "czars," many of whom are duplicating (and likely replacing from a practical standpoint) official cabinet positions. Others are entirely new positions with new and far-reaching power, power not granted to them by Congress and not approved by Congress.

There is no vetting process (at least not one open to scrutiny by Congress or we the people) and no accountability other than to the president. Transparency anyone?

It's a blatant circumvention of the constitutional separation of powers and it needs to stop. To me, it appears to be not only unconstitutional but a clear attempt to consolidate power in the executive branch while marginalizing the power of Congress. As Senator Byrd said in a recent letter to Obama, "The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances." Indeed.

Perhaps some in Congress are waking up to what's happening.

Taxpayers for Common Sense has a running list of the czars with additional detail on each one.

Here's the current list:

1. Afghanistan czar
2. AIDS czar
3. Border czar
4. CA Water czar
5. Car czar
6. Climate czar
7. Domestic violence czar
8. Drug czar
9. Economic czar
10. Energy czar
11. Faith-based czar
12. Great Lakes czar
13. Green jobs czar
14. Guantanamo closure czar
15. Health czar
16. Information czar
17. Intelligence czar
18. Mideast peace czar
19. Mideast policy czar
20. Pay czar
21. Regulatory czar
22. Science czar
23. Stimulus accountability czar
24. Sudan czar
25. TARP czar
26. TARP oversight czar
27. Technology czar
28. Terrorism czar (umm, shouldn't that be the man-caused disaster czar?)
29. Urban affairs czar
30. Weapons czar
31. WMD/Terrorism czar

and two not appointed yet:

32. Copyright czar
33. Cyberspace czar

33 and counting...

Read full post >>

I can't tell you how many times in the last few days and weeks I have read an article and thought to myself incredulously, what the heck is happening to this country?! Sounds a little melodramatic but this stuff is just insanity on so many levels. Here is just one example, more to come:




Almost as shocking as the content is the fact that this actually aired on MSNBC.

Obama is framing this up in terms of terrorist threats from foreign nations, specifically it kind of sounds like some sort of "insurance policy" to allow him to hold Gitmo detainees who cannot be successfully prosecuted through the legal system, since he insists on going that route in the first place.

However, what he's proposing here is a broad scope of power (dare I use the now overly worn-out word, "unprecedented"?) with what checks and balances? Once established, how easy would it be for such power to be abused - if not by this administration, then by the next one, or the one after them?

Remember that Dept of Homeland Security report warning of the risks of "right-wing extremism"? It was loosely defined to target those who favor states' rights, value the sanctity of life, support the 2nd amendment, or are U.S. veterans, just to name a few (and lacked supporting evidence).

If they're starting from scratch on setting the rules, and doing so outside the existing legal system, isn't it possible that these purposely vague descriptions could be used to target individuals for nothing more than exercising free speech? Or not even that, but just on the suspicion of possibly holding opinions that might conceivably (however remote the possibility) be deemed to be a "threat"? Or do I just have an overactive imagination? (I sincerely hope it's the latter).

Listen to what he's saying in the speech though - the justification for holding people is not what they've done, but what the government suspects they might do in the future. Being held - indefinitely, and without charges or trial - for a crime not yet committed (and possibly not ever intended to be committed). Imprisonment based not on actions or even intent, but on mere suspicion. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Read full post >>

H/T: Jill Stanek

As Jill Stanek put it, the comparison found on Voices Carry is indeed "profound:"

It occurred to me to juxtapose these two pictures from earlier today at Notre Shame University.



While the millstone of Notre Dame is placed around President Obortion's neck and 12k at Notre Dame stand giving a thunderous ovation, all heaven stood to honor an 80-year-old priest as he received heaven's high honor for peacefully taking a stand for life and the plight of the unborn...

That little jail tag around the neck of this bound man of God is a high honor in the kingdom of God. If you are wondering about my phrase - "the millstone of Notre Dame" - I'd remind you that Jesus spoke of placing something around the neck of those who keep children from LIFE.

I am not Catholic but I am a Christian and have a great respect for people who devote their lives to doing God's work, whatever their particular faith. I am deeply saddened to see this priest treated like a common criminal. I believe the official charge was "trespassing." How can a priest be "trespassing" on the campus of a Catholic university? Isn't that a place he should expect to be welcomed? It is sad to see a university that I have long respected as a religious institution treat one of their own this way and turn their backs on God's innocent children in honoring a man who holds those children in such contempt.

Obama said during the campaign that he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" if they made a "mistake." Since when are babies considered "punishment"? And why would he be so quick to "punish" his own grandchildren with a death sentence for the "mistake" of their mother (and father)?

All babies are children of God, and all are innocent no matter the circumstances of their conception.

Read full post >>

I don't have much time to go into detail, but these are worth reading:

AP's Calvin Woodward Does Astonishing Fact Check on Obama

and here's the original article referenced above:

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

Read full post >>

In a time when the "war on terror" is replaced by an "overseas contingency operation" and terrorism itself is rebranded as "man-made disasters," I can't help but miss the straightforward, no-nonsense approach of a leader who is not afraid to say of a terrorist leader,

"He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong." ~Ronald Reagan, 1986



H/T: ComMITTed to Romney

Read full post >>

Reportedly, many banks who were not in trouble were forced to take TARP bailout money back in the fall. The reasoning given was that this was to hide from the public which banks were actually in trouble. While I can see the logic in that, you can't have it both ways. You can't force a bank to take money it doesn't need and then turn around and say that because they "chose" to take TARP funds they are now subject to government control over executive decision-making for their firms.


Congress is framing all of these sweeping increases in power over banks (and other companies) as being directed at only those who were in trouble and ended up in a situation of needing government assistance (in which case, the argument goes, they "deserve" to have the government take over for the greater good). But this argument obscures the truth, which is that the government is seeking to control firms that are running just fine and only accepted TARP funds upon being forced to by the government.

It seems to me that the government ought to be jumping at the chance to recoup even a portion of what it has paid out. Instead, the Obama administration has actually threatened at least one bank CEO with "adverse" consequences if he continues to press to be allowed to repay the money (which he didn't want to accept in the first place).

So, they are forcing the profitable banks to keep their TARP funds. At the same time, they are screaming for AIG executives to return the portion of their TARP funds spent on bonuses. In the case of AIG, Chuck Schumer adamantly insisted that the money must be returned to "its rightful owners, the taxpayers." Nevermind that by "taxpayers" what he really meant was "the government." It's not like the government is actually going to give that money back to we the taxpayers, not the $165 million and not the trillions of our money (and that of our children and grandchildren) that they are now committing to spend.

But when other bank executives not only offer but plead to be allowed to pay their money back, their requests are rejected out of hand. Where is Chuck Schumer to insist that TARP money not needed by the firms who received it, be returned to "its rightful owners, the taxpayers?"

Meanwhile, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay about $210 million in bonuses, but I don't see the same public outrage and grandstanding from Congress and the adminstration over those.

The goal appears to be assertion of more and more government control over the banks, and the economy in general.

At a recent meeting with bank CEO's, Obama threatened, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

In fact, Obama's administration is the reason for the "pitchforks" (at least with regard to AIG) in the first place. They have made every effort to stoke rage among the people and aim it directly at bank CEO's and other executives. They've had the help of Congress and allies such as ACORN, who organized the mob-tactic intimidation-force bus tours to AIG executive homes. In other words, the government is trying to use we the people as a weapon to be wielded any time they need to bully someone into doing what they want. We should not allow ourselves to be used like that.

Read full post >>

It was bad enough when the government started throwing money at failing banks and companies with endless bailouts. It got worse when Congress and the President put on their show of feigned outrage over AIG bonuses when they themselves specifically made those bonuses possible, and then decided they had the power to nullify legally binding contracts and use the tax law as a weapon to target a specific group, retroactively. They showed no concern for the safety of AIG employees (the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with why AIG is now in trouble) and in fact did everything they could to stoke anger against "those greedy executives."

Now? Apparently the administration has decided they ought to just do away with the formalities of appearing to be separate and just start running the companies directly.


Tim Geithner asked Congress for unprecedented, sweeping powers to seize private firms, whether they received federal bailout money or not, if he deems them a risk to the economy.

Barney Frank wants the government to set the salaries of all employees, not just top execs, at companies that have received government money. (Right now, I think that means TARP, but who's to say next week it won't be any company who has contracts with the government or has contracts with people who have contracts with the government?)

And the Obama administration fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner (made his resignation a condition of receiving any further bailout funds). Call me crazy, but last time I checked, the hiring and firing decisions with regard to the CEO are the responsibility of the board of directors, not the president or any government official.

Apparently Obama & team sent both GM and Chrysler back to the drawing board to come back with better business plans. Really? Who in this administration has ANY business experience? They wouldn't know a good business plan if it bit them. I'm not saying that the GM or Chrysler plans were good or bad, I haven't reviewed them so I couldn't even offer comment on that. My point is - do we really think that a bunch of politicians / lawyers led by a former community organizer can possibly know better than executives who have been in the auto industry for years?

They're getting into the day-to-day operations as well - Obama (and your tax dollars) will guarantee the GM warrantees.

This is insane, and I can pretty much guarantee you it's not going to stop here. This is exactly the kind of thing conservatives warned of back when Bush & Pelosi said we just had to bail everyone out. Why? The bankruptcy code exists for a reason, and letting these failing institutions file for bankruptcy would have enabled them to restructure much of their debt and have a chance to emerge as a viable company again. All without spending billions of taxpayer dollars propping them up.

Mussolini once said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Considering recent events, I think that's a pretty accurate description of where we are. The lines between the private and public sector are not only blurred, but fading fast.

Read full post >>

Found on Tax Day Tea Party, originally from Suitably Flip:


If only this were true...

Read full post >>

As a follow-up to my post yesterday, here are my thoughts.

In case you missed Obama's comments, the video is at the bottom of this post (click "read full post" below). Obama was telling Leno about bowling in the White House bowling alley.

"I bowled a 129," Obama told Leno.
"That's very good, Mr. President," Leno said sarcastically.
"It's like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.

Do I think that Obama meant to denigrate individuals with special needs? No, I don't think it was intentional. But that is precisely the problem. His remarks DID belittle those with special needs regardless of his intentions. And the fact that it was unintentional just points to his own underlying biases and stereotypes, which he is obviously not even aware of.


I've seen many comments online along the lines of, "lighten up, he was making fun of himself, not anyone else."

Yes, making fun of himself by equating himself with a person with special needs.

Look at what he says. He's saying he's bad at bowling. Ok, no big deal. He then goes on to say it was like the Special Olympics. The implication there is that he's SO bad at bowling that he's as "bad" as people with special needs.

Two problems with that. First, that he just assumes that the Special Olympics athletes are bad at bowling. To the contrary, I've seen many, many instances over the last day of Special Olympics bowlers who could embarrass Barry in a bowling match. Second, that comparing yourself to someone with special needs is funny. It's not funny, Mr. President. It's hurtful.

Even more hurtful - the fact that while he personally apologized to Tim Shriver, the Chairman of the Special Olympics board (and a Kennedy, so not someone that will give Obama a hard time about anything), he did not see fit to apologize directly to the American people. Instead, a staffer offered their opinion that he "didn't mean it." That does not constitute an apology to the special needs community, in my opinion.

Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters traveling with Obama that the president's offhand remark was not meant to disparage the Special Olympics, only to poke some fun at the commander-in-chief's bowling skills.

"He thinks that the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives an opportunity to shine to people with disabilities from around the world," Burton said.

When he's speaking specifically on disabilities, Obama says the right things:

"We must build a world free of unnecessary barriers, stereotypes, and discrimination.... policies must be developed, attitudes must be shaped, and buildings and organizations must be designed to ensure that everyone has a chance to get the education they need and live independently as full citizens in their communities."

-- Barack Obama, April 11, 2008

But given that his own comment unintentionally serves to perpetuate stereotypes rather than overcome them, I can only wonder if his speeches are not indicative of his true feelings.

This isn't the first time Barry O. has given reason for concern about his regard (or disregard) for people with disabilities. He expressed regret for voting in support of efforts to protect the life of Terri Schiavo, a woman who was profoundly disabled due to brain damage but was not on life support or in a coma. Rather, she had a family who loved her, was taking care of her, and wanted her to live. The only reason her life hung in the balance in the courts, was because of her disabilities.

~~~~~~~~~

I have three sons with autism. We are considering letting our older two, who will be 8 this summer, compete in Special Olympics track & field because they love to run. To my knowledge, they haven't heard the President's thoughtless comment. But wouldn't it be great for them to be able to see in the President someone who respects them and people like them, rather than seeing them as a punchline for a joke.

Did the president mean to hurt countless children and adults with disabilities and their families? No, but that is precisely what he did. He then refused to apologize directly to those he may have hurt with his comment. And from the President of the United States, we expect and deserve better.

Read full post >>

Here's a link.

Apparently, giving TOTUS (his Teleprompter) the night off was not a good idea.

More on this later.

Read full post >>

It looks like Obama has managed to reverse himself again, only this time in a good way if you're opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

You may recall that on Monday, Obama signed an order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Although he made it sound like embryonic stem cell research itself had previously been banned, it hadn't. It simply required private funding since federal funding was restricted. He also neglected to mention that in the years since the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was put into place, promising advances have been made in the area of adult stem cell research, which does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Two days later, he signed the $410 billion omnibus porkfest, complete with 8,000 earmarks. Yes, after he campaigned on "no earmarks". But don't worry, he's going to make sure they do something about earmarks next year.

Apparently, he didn't bother to read it (anyone surprised?), because the omnibus budget bill included a provision that bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Which basically undoes what he did on Monday, does it not?

Read full post >>

After 8 years of liberal hand-wringing over what the rest of the world thinks of America (what with our "cowboy" president and all), I'm sure we're all happy to see how much higher an opinion the world has of us with them in charge of things.

After all, the administration only managed to offend two countries this week.

Apparently, the Obamas' treatment of Gordon and Sarah Brown of Britain wasn't exactly what they are used to, and was actually taken to be quite rude. Typically they have a full press conference when they visit, this time no press conference was planned, but when they asked a small one was hastily put together. And the exchange of gifts... well, I can only wonder what in the world was Obama thinking?


The Browns gave the Obamas an ornamental pen holder made from the wood of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet, the sister ship to the HMS Resolute, from which the oak was used to make the desk in the Oval Office. In addition, they gave the Obamas a framed commission for HMS Resolute, a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert, and for the Obama children, nice dresses with matching necklaces, and six children's books by British authors. All very thoughtful gifts.

What did the Obamas give them in return? A box of 25 DVD's (including such titles as "Psycho," "Star Wars," and "ET." Niiiice. And for their sons? Little plastic Marine One helicopters. I'm sure the boys will like the toy helicopters, but it just doesn't seem to have the same thoughtfulness to it.

This story hasn't received much coverage in the U.S., but as you can imagine, it's all over the news in England. And now the question has been raised as to whether the DVD's were actually compatible with British DVD players, which apparently use a different format. LOL.

Meanwhile, in Russia, Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red button. A red button. From us to Russia. Anyone see any symbolism there that we might not want to be bringing up??

Anyway, the point of the red button was to be a "reset" button to "reset" our relationship with Russia. Cheesy like a block of Velveeta even if it had worked out, but as it turns out, no one in the State Department could appropriately translate the word "reset" into Russian, so what she actually gave him a button that said, "overcharged." Huh? When he pointed out the error, she laughed and said, "Well, we won't let you do that to us." Groan.



The Obama administration isn't out offending everyone though, they're actually considering reaching out to the Taliban. Can't wait to see how that goes.

Read full post >>

I heard on the radio yesterday about this article from Politico regarding Obama's "unprecedented" reliance on his teleprompter, not just for speeches but for even the smallest of announcements. Ever notice how he never looks straight at the crowd, but goes back and forth looking side to side as he speaks?

Then I saw this on Redstate, and it's just too funny not to share.

Read full post >>

Obama announced today his plans to draw down troop levels in Iraq over the next 18 months. If I remember correctly, Bush actually set that in motion before leaving office, but whatever.

Speaking to a group of Marines today as he announced his plans, Obama managed to avoid using the word "victory." He simply said our troops "got the job done." Not even "job well done," just "got the job done."

John McCain's response, "I think it'd be very appropriate for the president to say that we are winning, and we have succeeded, and we are achieving victory."


Questioned about the omission, Secretary of Defense Gates responded, "I don't think they need to be told that they've been successful, they know it."

To let politics take precedence over honor in this way is beyond disgraceful.

Our troops DO need to hear it, and they need to hear it from their Commander in Chief. Their families and friends need to hear it, and they need to hear it from their President. The families of all the troops who didn't make it home need to hear it. They need to know that the mission in which their loved ones sacrificed their very lives in service of their country, will be ending in victory. Our troops and their families have made countless sacrifices in support of America's mission in Iraq, and they HAVE been successful.

Our troops have succeeded in liberating the Iraqis from a tyrannical leader who routinely murdered and tortured his own people. The road has not been easy, but bit by bit we have succeeded in helping the Iraqi people to develop their own democracy.

One of the greatest evidences of the success was seen last month, with little if any mention in the MSM, when Iraq held free elections without violence.

Major General John Kelly wrote about the experience, here's an excerpt:

I don't suppose this will get much coverage in the States as the news is so good. No, the news is unbelievable.

Something didn't happen in Al Anbar Province, Iraq today, Saturday January 31.

Once the most violent and most dangerous places on earth, no suicide vest bomber detonated killing dozens of voters.

No suicide truck bomber drove into a polling place collapsing the building and killing and injuring over 100.

No Marine was in a firefight engaging an Al Qaeda terrorist trying to disrupt democracy.

What did happen was Anbar Sunnis came out in their tens of thousands to vote in the first free election of their lives.

...

Six PM and the polls close without a single act of violence or a single accusation of fraud, and nearly by early reports pretty close to 100% voted. Priceless.

Major Kelly goes on to make the point that "People are not given freedom and democracy - they take it for themselves. The Anbaris deserve this credit."

Yes, the people of Iraq deserve credit. Without their resolve and courage to do this for their families and communities, none of this would have happened. But so too, the sacrifices of American troops were also essential to bringing Iraq to where it is today.

Our troops deserve to hear that in no uncertain terms from their Commander in Chief.




Link to video

Read full post >>

Sigh. I realize that broken promises go with politicians like chocolate fudge goes with ice cream, but come on. It's only been 25 days and seven promises from just this one speech have already gone by the wayside.




1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it "Impossible" for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. You'll know what's in it
7. We will put every pork barrel project online

Let's see.

Impossible for pork to be slipped in? Almost the entire bill is pork! We're told there are "no earmarks" in this bill, and that's only because all the pet projects are just part of the bill and therefore no need to slip them in as earmarks. At least with earmarks, we'd be able to see who put each project in. But as it stands, we have no idea who is responsible for each of the "porky" projects. So while they're telling us it's more transparency, it's actually much less.

No more secrecy? The bill was written with no Republican input, much less public input. The final negotiations took place behind closed doors, with Republicans completely shut out (including the three who had promised to vote for it). They didn't have an "open" meeting until the negotiations were over.

Not only did the public not get access to the bill until the 11th hour, but Congress didn't even have access to the final bill until just a few hours before they were expected to vote on it. There was no time to actually read it, and they didn't get it in a web-based, searchable format, they got 8 inches of paper. Obama is set to sign it on Tuesday, the first business day after the House and Senate passed it.

So much for 5 days time for the public to review before it is signed into law, not to mention the 48 hours we were supposed to have to review before it was voted on.

And these are just the broken promises that are relevant to this one particular bill. We were promised a "new era of bipartisanship," the "most ethical administration in history," with "no lobbyists" in the administration.

What we got instead was Nancy Pelosi rewriting the rules of the House to bar the minority party from offering alternative bills, amendments to bills, or even having a guarantee of open debate.

What we got instead was one cabinet pick after another riddled by ethics issues.
- Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary - nonpayment of taxes (confirmed anyway)
- Tom Daschle, Head of HHS - nonpayment of taxes and conflict of interest (finally withdrew from consideration, but Obama was prepared to stand by him despite the fact that any other citizen with so much backtaxes owed would be in jail)
- Bill Richardson - Commerce Secretary, withdrew when the fact that he was under investigation for ethics violations surfaced
- Hilda Solis - tax issues & conflict of interest issues - confirmation hearings not yet complete
- Nancy Killefer - "Performance Czar" (newly created position) - tax issues
- Hillary Clinton - conflict of interest, confirmed anyway
- David Ogden - Deputy Atty General, has defended the porn industry and opposed a law that would protect children from predators on the internet.

As for the "no lobbyists" rule? Instead, he started filing for exemptions almost as soon as the rule was passed. What's the point in setting a standard if you have no intention of actually living up to it? Oh yeah, he's hoping no one is paying attention.

The so-called most "ethical" administration ever has been a big disappointment so far, and it's only been 25 days. It's going to be a long four years.

Read full post >>

The other day I watched the latter part of President Bush's farewell speech, and a few things struck me as I listened. Now, anyone who knows me, knows that I have been critical of Bush on a number of points over the years (the recent bailout fiasco for one). But at his core, George W. Bush is a good and decent man. I think that often gets lost in the shuffle amid all the Bush-bashing that's out there. Much is said about his approval rating in the 30's, little is said of Congress' approval rating in the teens.

Regardless of any policy decisions we may or may not agree with, I believe that President Bush has by and large done what he felt was right, whether or not it was popular or politically expedient. I hope that history remembers that about him. And to his credit, he has succeeded in preventing any terrorist attacks on our soil after 9/11. Who among us would have predicted that 7 years ago?

I was also struck by a deep appreciation for our founders and the system of government they established for us. The peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next is a blessing. America is a great nation, and I wish our incoming president the best as he takes the oath of office tomorrow. Although we face some serious immediate challenges, I have to believe that we will find a way to meet those challenges and emerge stronger for it.

UPDATE - Just got word that Bush has commuted the sentences of border patrol agents Ramos and Compean. I would have liked to see a full pardon, but I'm extremely happy to hear that these two men will be returning to their families soon.

Related links:
History will show that George W. Bush was right
Bush Exits

Read full post >>