The Resident’s Speech
by Blake on Sep 8, 2009 at 07:51 Political
Well, I have read the text of the speech that BHO will be giving to America’s schoolchildren, and on the face of it, it seems innocent enough- but I still have reservations about it, simply because many of the students will not understand it.
This is because the Resident is still in campaign mode (has he ever stopped?), and the words he uses may or may not be understood by those who are in junior high or high school, but they will not be understood by very many others who are younger, simply because he uses words they might not have encountered yet. This may, at least for an English teacher, be the true lesson here, but otherwise, for many students, it’s time to doodle in their notebooks. Here’s an example. Also note the subtle propaganda- that is to be expected.
“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.”
Now, I don’t know where he gets his facts, but the sad fact is that very little real history is taught in schools these days- one day on the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, and about one to two days on the Revolutionary or Civil wars.
Instead, all the emphasis is on the civil rights era- which is important, but without the teaching of prior history to lay the foundation, is kind of a “floating”, aimless history with no anchors in the past.
If a person wants to be effective in the future, he or she must know what mistakes were made in the past. That way, they are not repeated. The Resident’s foray into economics should be a good lesson in the mistakes of the past for all economics courses.
“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.”
The speech is OK- I believe it is short of inspirational, but then I think he should actually think of the words he is saying- perhaps they could help him also- particularly the last paragraph there. His problem in his life has been the adults he has trusted- I wouldn’t put Rahm Emanuel, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, or many of the others he has surrounded himself with to be shining examples of good company- you are known by the company you keep, and this company is the kind your parents warned you about- they are like Eddie Haskell- they are bound to get a person in trouble.
And in the end, that may be the lesson these students end up learning from the Resident.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: hard work, history, speech, students
Interestingly, the speech contains this line:
“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.”
Why didn’t he say where all the OTHER American kids went to school?
More to the point, why did he not say, I went to an Indonesian Madrassa for awhile? Is he ashamed?
Well, I’m glad you’ve scaled back the frothy fake outrage just a little. I’m sure Obama will work in plenty more things to get outraged about though so don’t rest.
Obama didn’t write the word ‘other’…so? Another Freudian slip to say he wasn’t American? Uh oh. Birtherism creeping in?
That Obama was born an American citizen is 100% without a doubt by way of his mother being an American when he was born. It’s if he’s a natural born citizen that is the question and that which birthers seem to want to ignore reality over.
You know that Madrassa is just an Arabic word for school and doesn’t mean anything about religion, right? He didn’t write “I went to an Indonesian Madrassa” because he is speaking English, not because he is ashamed.
no, but he could have said he went to an Indonesian school- that would have been understandable- was he ashamed? I do not know.
I do not think Dog was even implying “Birtherism” in his remark, just an omission of a word that clarified context-
And, yes, while Madrassa is Arabic for school, it is also a word associated with ISLAMIC indoctrination of children- which is why I do understand he would be reluctant to say that at this time.
He does, however, have a tendency to gloss over his bio- as if he sprang fully formed onto the world stage.
We still know very little about his early years, and I do not think that this mystery helps him.
Blake is right, I did not imply birther stuff. I only point out that his omission leaves him open to more skepticism. If Beck was an idiot for leaving out a letter what is Obama after leaving out the important word?
And it’s an important word how?
Obama could not be a citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. Under the laws at the time she was too young and did not meet the requirements to confer citizenship. His father was Kenyan which was under British rule and would therefore confer that citizenship status on him. If he is a dual citizen he is ineligible. This would be true regardless of where he was born.
As for the birther issue, show a real birth certificate and put the issue to rest. So many liberals went after McCain and he ponied up his BC and it was looked at (his natural born citizenship was conferred by law) but he had to do it. Why will Obama not do it. Don’t give me the Certification of Live Birth BS either. Those were issued to anyone, citizen or not, who rehgistered a birth in Hawaii.
I don’t know where he was born I just know where he says he was born which is different than what his grandmother says. He could clear it up by releasing the actual long form birth certificate.
I had to show one to get enrolled in school, get a job, a passport, join the Army, and to join little league baseball. I don’t think it is too much to ask that he show his.
That would clear it up once and for all. Though there is the issue of his daddy and the dual citizenship…
As for the word other. You said Beck was an idiot for leaving a letter out of a word. Obama must fit that description by not recognizing the way he left himself open by omitting the word OTHER.
I can’t imagine why leaving out the word ‘other’ is a point of interest unless Big Dog is implying birther hilarity. He can clear that up I’m sure, though.
First you chide him for using words children might not understand and then you turn around and chide him for not using the word Madrassa. So which is it?
If you read what Obama wrote he’s not talking about what went on at his regular schools. He’s talking about indipendent studies with his mother before school each morning. And for the record, while Obama attended school in Indonesia he split years between a Muslim school and a Catholic school. He didn’t mention Catholic school either, you suppose he’s ashamed of that too?
I’m not sure what you want to know about Obama’s early years that isn’t covered in one of his books or journalism of the last few years. It’s not the big mystery you seem to want it to be.
I am not chiding him for not using the word madrassa- but he could have said “school”- and Dog’s pointing out that he could have said “other” American children might have implied that he saw himself as “American” , and identified with other Americans, instead he implies, by this omission, that perhaps he did not identify with other Americans.
And perhaps he is ashamed of Catholic school also.
I can’t know what’s in his mind, so I have to infer from his words, his intent.
Covered in his books? So we should take his word for it? If he wants children to see that doing well in school is important then he should release his school records. He is the LEAST transparent person ever to occupy the White House.
What you’re saying flies in the face of an article I saw this morning:
Take what you will from that organization’s opinion, but they don’t agree with you.
So he is more open because he released George Bush’s memos? I guess Bush would have been more open if he released all those secrets the Clintons have hidden. Obama is secretive about his past, his records are sealed and he has not done what he said with regard to posting things in advance. Some transparency there.
It’s interesting that he will be open with another administration’s info, but still won’t release his- that’s not transparency, that’s deception.
I guess you missed the part where Obama has opened up visitor records, something Bush never did. It’s not just all Bush stuff he’s making transparent. In fact the article I linked lists several more. I guess you decided to skip reading it so you could just draw your own uninformed conclusion.
This is apparently how you want his paragraph to go:
Yeah, that looks better. No need for Obama to beat around the bush and not say what he really means…
My point is simply that you’re being a bit silly. This isn’t Truth In Advertising.
You’re just imagining all these things you want Obama to say and since he isn’t saying it then you accuse him of some sin of omission and suggest he might be ashamed of it. Silly.
Adam, My point is that he believes that he is very good with words- if that is so, is the omission intentional? truly do not know- I just point out that he omits a LOT of things that might prove to be “inconvenient”.
So, no- that would not be how I want the paragraph to be-
More like.
“I know the feeling- when I was young,my family lived in Indonesia, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me to the school where the other American kids went, so I went to school in an Indonesian school, and also a Catholic one,”
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Why does he need to say that stuff? What does it clarify? What does leaving it off achieve?
Just as some people are incapable of telling a lie, I believe he cannot tell the truth- not completely.
So he omits details and words that would provide the context needed to completely understand him.
You’re just nitpicking. You have no substantive argument against what Obama said today so you’d rather set up a series of BS arguments about what Obama should have said and why he didn’t say it. Blah blah blah, that’s all you have on this one.
No, I do not believe I am nitpicking- for a man who evidently has an ego, and one who believes he knows his way around a speech, the omission of key words indicates a desire to minimize or omit certain “clarifying” contextual words- words that, if spoken, change the meaning of a sentence, but without these words, a “different” context, a false flag, if you will, can be flown.
This is why a Resident has speechwriters- to ensure that there are no mistakes- so it seems to me to be nothing more or less than intentional.
To me Obama still doesn’t identify with “Americans.” Liberals refuse to see it. According to the “crazy birthers,” the school that Obama attended in Idonesia could only be attended by Indonesian citizens.
Liberals are Americans too, by the way. There are quite a few of us around. Just because you don’t identify with Obama doesn’t mean Obama doesn’t identify with “Americans.”
That is not it. I am sorry you cannot call Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Frank “whats his name,” true Americans and that is who Obama identifies with. Obama grew up surrounded, mentored and raised by radicals and communists. Look at all the wackos he is appointing as “czars.” And where is that coming from? by the way. We don’t have czars, excuse me. Maybe Russia did at one time. And they are not elected or accountable to anyone. You can sit there blinded and deluded all you want but the rest of us are not and there are quite a few of us too.
Victoria apparently now leads the movement to have every person working in the Executive Branch go through an election or a Senate hearing so they all can answer to somebody other than just the Democratically elected man who sits in the Oval Office.
Once again the Constitution comes into play. There are plenty of folks in the Executive who are hired employees. Those appointed are supposed to be with the advice and consent of the Senate.
This is where you reach the disconnect point between reality and what conservatives are fear mongering about. There is no “czar” title. It’s a made up term that is used to describe several types of people. Some are advisers to Obama, some are advisers to cabinet posts, some come through the Senate, some don’t, etc.
I don’t see how you can be afraid of a “green jobs czar” any more than you are afraid of Chief Of Staff and all the people serving under the Chief of Staff. What about the press secretary? That’s pretty important. What is it about the “czars” that makes you think the vetting process is any less or that they don’t answer to us for what they do? It doesn’t make sense…
It depends on their job description, Adam- if their job is to advise the president only, perhaps they can get by without confirmation, but they still should (and I believe that it IS the law) that they still fill out the questionnaire- this protects the Resident from embarrassment, and ensures that crazy people, like Van Jones, do not slip by- after all, the people did NOT vote for a communist in our government, and the politicians in office have a duty to perform their sworn duties “to protect and defend” the Constitution, no matter how much they are carrying water for the Resident.
First of all you have no record of the vetting process for a person like Jones so you’re just speculating that he didn’t go through a similar vetting as Rahm Emanuel. Is Emanuel, Chief of Staff OK but a “green jobs czar” working under a cabinet post is not?
Second, take the 15 or so of the 30+ “czars” that aren’t Senate confirmed and compare them with the 100’s of other positions in the West Wing and the Executive Branch in general that the media doesn’t say qualify as a “czar” and tell me what is so wrong or unconstitutional and worthy of this fear-mongering.
Cabinet posts are vetted, and confirmed by a process, so there is much more transparency there- with Jones, there was none- there was not required to be, although for anyone who will be that close to the Pres. and the decision- making process, there should be some kind of vetting done, don’t you think so?
If these Czars, or whatever the hell you choose to call them are going to advise the Resident, might you feel better knowing they are not whackjobs? Or that they might be inclined to off the Resident?
If there WAS a record, we would have seen it, unless the answers on it were just too embarrassing to the Resident.
That depends on the authority they are given, Adam- Take Cass Sunstein, who will probably be confirmed by the Senate, because the only really crazy things HE’S said are about animal rights-
Well, those statements cause me some concern, as he seems to believe that animals have the rights to sue- of course, abetted by an attorney who will mystically “know” what the animal wants- that’s beyond flakey- but as Regulatory “Czar”, he will be in a position to cause a lot of trouble over a few animals- and I bet he brings his pivot man, Peter Singer with him- oh wait- Singer likes to have sex with animals, so, my bad.
And maybe your first problem is taking the word of the “crazy birthers.”
I don’t call them birthers. I call them Constitutionalists who want to ensure we do not have a usurper in office. Since when is it wrong to uphold the Constitution?
I call the morons. Don’t make me list all the ways they are the dumbest people on the planet…
It’s not wrong to uphold the Constitution. It’s wrong to ignore the overwhelming evidence against what you believe simply because you’re holding out for one single piece of evidence. Birthers are not Constitutionalists. They are rubes who have been duped into believing something the same way 9/11 truthers have been duped.
Just watch this video for more info.
While I do not buy intothe Birther thing, it IS curious as to how much of his life he has kept from the public. However, that video you link to is ridiculous, like using South Park as a reference.
If that is your “evidence” on birthers, you either need more or less drugs.
You should know better- I have more respect for your intel than that.
Here is a comment I just read on the very subject Adam and it sums it up nicely.
Remember how Obama was blindsided that anyone had a problem with him chumming around with Ayers and Wright for most of his adult life? It’s one of his blind spots. America is so alien to him that he can’t tell when somebody is not just out of the mainstream, but beyond the pale.
Sorry, but Obama has never chummed around with Ayers and the caricature of Wright that you’ve been handed down by liars like Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh is hardly representative of the kind of man Wright is and has been. You’ve been lied to.
We have been lied to? Out of Wright’s own mouth are the words about evil white people causing the AIDS virus. His racist rants against whites and his anti American rants are from his own mouth. It is not a caricature, it is the real thing. I know it is hard for your liberal mind to understand but he said what he said.
Wow- both Wright and Jones had a litany of past youtube moments, where they condemned themselves- no one had to dig very deep, because both love the sound of their own voices.
And you cannot tell me that Barry sat in the pew for twenty years, listening to wright, and didn’t hear rants like those on youtube- that would not be logical- right didn’t just “go off his meds” one day on front of the camera, he had been doing that al along. The same with Jones.
And as to Ayers, they were on the same board of the Annenberg Challenge- they’ve more than met- their children went to the same school- they’ve met- Ayer’s daddy is a big Democrat in Chicago- I can guarantee you, they have met- so don’t play the fool for someone who would gladly throw you under the bus.
What I said first is not supported by law because my logic was flawed. You are either born a citizen at birth or not. I said that he was born a citizen, just not a natural born citizen, which is of course nonsensical on my part. My general point was not that Obama was natural born by his mother alone, but that there is no reason to conspire with Hawaii when Obama could have become a citizen easily because of his mother.
You ignore all the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii simply because you hold out for one piece of evidence. It doesn’t make sense. It’s like asking 100 people if the sky is blue and on 99th you say well I can’t figure out if the sky is blue because I haven’t asked that 100th person.
There are conflicting stories. The guy from Hawaii said the BC on file meets the standards for Hawaii. When he was born people were alloed to register births of those born outside the country. His grandmother said he was born in kenya and she was there when he was born. The issue deals with the laws in effect at the time. The issue could be cleared up by release of the BC. That is the one document that clears it all. I know you like the idea of not saying the sky is blue because the 100th person has not said but if the standard is to ask 100 people then that standard must be met. In America, the standard for proving citizenship is the birth certificate. They did not take my word when i joined the Army or when I applied for all the jobs I have had, they made me show it. They also made me show it when I got my passport. So why is it that he is not held to that standard?
My passport required me to present the same kind of birth certificate as Obama. This was the same for enrollment in college, etc., so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
I have never seen my hand written one. It’s long gone. I use a copy gained from state records in the same fashion Obama had his certificate made in 2007.
Do you think Obama’s copy of his birth certificate released would not work for these things?
The item that was released was not a brith certificate (which we know exists because he said he had it and Hawaii said they had one). No, what you have is a certification of birth. It does not show the items required to prove citizenship when applied to this because Hawaii allowed foreign births to be registered.
I had to show my certified true copy of a BC and it had all my data on it. I have my original.
There is also question about the authenticity of his released COLB. Suspicious it was released through Kos. Just get the real one that names the hospital and we can be doen with it.
Why should Obama do more to prove something he has already proven? To try and convince a bunch of nutjob birthers that have already denied or constructed an elaborate conspiracy around every piece of evidence there is already out there to prove Obama was born in Hawaii? Like it would even help.
No, you would never be done with it. It’s time all you birthers just come to terms with reality and accept the evidence that is out there and stop demanding more evidence that you’ll just question anyway.
You are assuming that something has been proven. We have someone’s word for it and no legal paper. The one shown is not even allowed in Hawaii for certain land purchases. It would be over and done if he would release conclusive proof. I bet if he released his school records they would show some interesting things like he was registered as a foreign student.
It’s funny because now that Jones is gone the “czars” you’re smearing the most poop around about are all Senate confirmed or in the process of becoming that way, so I don’t really see your point. You have zero evidence to suggest Jones was not vetted so I don’t see your point there either.
If you take out the “czars” that are confirmed by the Senate and you take out the “czars” that predate Obama’s tenure you are left with just a handful of these people who serve Obama directly or under a Cabinet post. It’s not the scary situation you folks want to make it, it’s just more of the garbage we’re accustomed to seeing from your side these days.