Parents Unite Against Obama’s “Brainwashing” Speech to Students

OK this is getting bizarre. This mother breaks into tears when she thinks of the President of the United States speaking to her children in school. We are less than two days away from Obama’s brain-washing, soul-crushing, communist-loving subliminal-laced speech to our children. By Wednesday, our schools will be little more than communes with kids calling for redistribution of wealth and reeducation of parents.

There was a time when the lunch lady was the scariest thing at school.

I am honored to speak to the Kent Gardens Elementary School on Constitution Day and I have been looking for tips on the brainwashing techniques. (I would like my car washed everyday by zombie elementary students). I assume that the subliminal messages work something like this: “Hello children, I am the President of the United States (undervoice: “vote Democratic”). I want to speak with you about education (undervoice: “Republicans shot Bambi”) . . .”

Even some Chicago schools are refusing to air the speech. While some schools have banned the speech on the ground that they would not be able to read it, the White House always promised to release it on Monday — the day before. The speech was actually released on Sunday and it proved every bit as indoctrinating as feared. Among other things, Obama asks the children to wash their hands. What totalitarian hogwash. Then there is this frightening bit:

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.

Everyone knows that “opportunity” is doublespeak for enslaving your parents and sacrificing them to gay socialist feminist union overlords. What is even more frightening is that Obama has already brainwashed Laura Bush, who has come out in favor of the subliminally laden speech, here.

In one Fox story, a parent explains how a president speaking to school kids is “very socialistic.” What they do not realize is that there is little to worry about. To be sent to a re-education camp, you first have to be educated. According to recent data, the schools in many of the states opposing the President’s speech have already protected against that danger.

However, as this clip shows, even our classic movies were used to shape us unconsciously through subliminal messages:

For the story, click here.

120 thoughts on “Parents Unite Against Obama’s “Brainwashing” Speech to Students”

  1. rafflaw writes: “Let Texas secede so the USA can Succeed. ”

    excellent. this will make the top ten for sure.

  2. gyges,

    “I think we should clarify that when I was talking about motivation, I’m talking about the motivation of the parties, not individuals.”

    I still think we are suffering from a bit of crosstalk.

    Again, I think it’s semantic. It’s not possible to totally divorce the abstraction of an organization’s goals from the motives of the individual actors. A body politic is after all composed of it’s constituent parts. In the sense that both organizations have different goals, yes, there are two parties. What I’m saying is that neither party is working for citizens anymore and their motivation as individuals is irrelevant as long as the parties continue to act against public interest. And just like the insurance industry fighting to refuse claims, it’s not in a politicians interest (of either party) to act in the public’s interests when it’s the corporations footing their campaign and living expenses. That one side is more blatantly and openly evil than the other is a matter of degree and given the importance of their jobs not acceptable no matter what corporate master they bend for. Their differing goals are meaningless when both are corrupted in the same fashion. If you have a rusted out hammer and a rusted out screwdriver, both tools are crap. In that sense, there is only one party and that’s the K St. Graft & Greed Cotillion. The Rust Party. And you know what Neil Young said about rust . . .

  3. Buddha,

    I’m fine with saying both parties are corrupt. I’m simply disagreeing about your rhetorical language. I feel your strategy has the inherent danger of covering up a fundamental truth, which I expounded on.

    I think we should clarify that when I was talking about motivation, I’m talking about the motivation of the parties, not individuals.


    First off, we’ll just have to agree to disagree that there’s only one party. In my opinion having two groups of people with mutually exclusive membership means that there are TWO groups, no matter how similarly they may act. The 49ers and the Chiefs may both play football, but they aren’t the same team.

    Please explain why you think the left should share the blame for THIS instance. All you have done is say “well they should because in OTHER cases they do bad things.”

    I’m am outspoken critic of ANY politician I feel is in the wrong, but I’m also willing to support any action that I feel is right.

  4. Gyges,

    To try to address both your points:

    Why is this speech an example of right wing and left wing leaders whipping up their populace. I think many people above have well addressed the racism that exists in this nation and how it doesn’t take much to set it off by “leaders” who take a boilerplate speech and make it sound like it’s SOCIALISM. The log has been taken out of the right wing’s eye here. Now it’s time to take the log out of the left wing eye and I’m just going to repete something from above:

    Obama has sanctioned torture, rendition, the bombing of civilians, the escalation of our wars, the illegality of the past administration, the illegality that is taking place among high placed financial firms and regulators and is about to “legally” imprison the innocent and what are we talking about? Those crazy right wing nuts. Yes, it’s meaningful to argue with the ideas of the crazy right wing nuts but it’s just as imporatant to not forget all of the above concerning Obama. Is this the person you want giving a pious, feel good message about how kids should live their life? If so, why? Does is make sense to ask people who sanction and engage in the above to be motivational speakers to children?

    If Obama quit bombing children that same age. If he quit letting them starve, quite letting them be forced from their homes, quit failing to stand up and got moving on getting them and their parents health care–that would be a true feel good moment for me. Taking inspiration and feeling good about someone who engages in some very bad actions is odd. But the fact that many people ignore what Obama is doing and are swept away by his speeches, that’s manipulation, pure and simple. It’s not what’s in the speech it’s the speech creating a vision of Obama as a great, caring guy who loves children, just so long as they aren’t in the U.S. or if in the U.S. not poor or middle class. The left wing is falling for the image of Obama not the reality. Actions are what should inspire us or at the very least words that are equal to those actions. In Obama’s case the left sees only the flowery words and blinds itself to some truly rotton actions. This is like Bush having the aircraft carrier turned with the sun. It’s a ploy to get people to focus on the “visuals” while ignoring the reality–in this case children who are homeless and starving are going to have a hard time getting good marks and doing their best. The dead children in Afghanistan aren’t going to be doing that at all. So in the left’s case it is spectacle over substance. The substance is ignored at the peril of these very children who are to be inspired.

    I am struck that the far right and the left wing believe the exact same myths about Obama. They both believe he is a socialist, a peacenik and weak on surveillance. No amount of actual evidence will penetrate this mindset on either side. When I see that evidence simply has no place in a discussion with two completely different groups–that’s simply astounding. Worse, it’s dangerous.

    As to the two or one parties. At one time their were two distinct parties, Both of them have become some corrupt and work against the common welfare that they work as one party. If you want to call them two parties I would say they are in name only. But along with Buddha, I’m not really concerned that much over how it’s described, only that people see that no one in the leadership of either party gives a damn for the common welfare of this nation or the world. Their actions speak to this reality, loud and clear.

  5. Motive is meaningless. The issue is capacity. Prevention of corruption is key. That’s systemic. By eliminating the current lobby and campaign finance laws and ensuring that corruption is nearly impossible to hide, you are addressing the cause. There will always be votes for sale. A certain percentage of humans are vile greedy vermin. So addressing motive is not effective either. The best one can do is minimize and mitigate. Since we can’t edit people’s minds just yet (soon, soon they keep whispering to Cheney) our best method of reducing corruption is to remove the mechanisms of corruption. That’s again a systemic fix. The problem is who we are depending on to deliver the fix. Since we are telling the very same people responsible for promoting said culture of corruption to fix it and they aren’t, why isn’t it appropriate to treat both parties as if they are acting against the interests of We the People? They are. Their reasons for doing so are meaningless other than the varied degrees they deserve to be punished.

  6. Buddha,

    There is a very basic distinction: the individuals that make up the two parties are different people.

    I ask you to consider for a moment why political parties exist. As near as I can tell the answer is “to get it’s members elected.” That means the goal of the Republican party is to get Republicans elected, and the goal of the Democratic is to get Democrats elected. What gets you identified as either of those is incidental to that basic fact. The two parties could be identical in ever sense except membership, and they would still work to get THEIR members elected. That’s why I keep harping on the point that there are TWO parties, not one party pretending to be two.

    Here’s where it gets counterproductive to act as though the two parties are one: You’re focusing only on the effects and not the cause. The cause of our problems isn’t that both parties bow their heads to the same Nobles. That’s just one of the problems. The cause is that the current system makes it so that the easiest way for the parties to fulfill their function is to bow their heads. If you ignore the motivation for their selling out, you’ll never solve anything.

    A third party is going to have the same inherent weaknesses as the existing parties now, because of the nature of political parties. It may take 2 or 3 generations, but at some point that party would be just as in bed with money as the current party. It has to get it’s members elected, and the best way to do that is to make deals.

  7. gyges,

    But is it? Counterproductive seems a bit harsh. I don’t think I was treating the parties as a single unit, but rather two similar units suffering from a similar malaise. In fact, I suspect this is crosstalk and hair splitting. I think what you are saying is difference without distinction at this point. The problem is corporate corruption of electoral and legislative process – graft for short. That both parties suffer from the same problem and it’s treatment resistant by it’s very nature. You said it yourself. Both parties are corrupt to the core. In that sense, it does not hurt to discuss them as a single unit as both are, pardon the lapse into abstraction, both are Big Style Political Parties (models A & B) and both suffer from a common design flaw – graft and corporatism. We’ve been trying to change the design of a faulty tool by using it on itself. We’ll never get it fixed that way. It’s time to start over. Obama removed any hope I had that the graft problem was fixable with the current players when he bent over for Big Pharma on price negotiations. Both parties and the corporatist swine on K Street need to go for the good of the nation. Corporations need to be removed from process or corporations need to start having “accidents”. Whether they go voluntarily or by force is remains to be seen but if they are not part of the solution, then they are part of the problem. Obama was right in saying change comes from the outside. If the goons in D.C. keep ignoring that repeated and ever more urgent cry, then when the crap hits the fan, they did it to themselves. I’ll shed nary a tear for them from either party. As far as I’m concerned going with the lesser of two evils just isn’t an option anymore. Is it?

  8. I think I may be being unclear. Most of my complaint is that people are taking what is a great example of the extreme right manufacturing an issue and using it to say “Both parties
    manufacture issues.”
    I also object to any theory or rhetoric that acts as if both parties are a single unit. Both parties can be corrupt to the core, but they are two distinct parties. Treating them as a single unit is counterproductive.
    That’s the whole of what I was trying to say.

  9. Mike A writes: GWLawSchoolMom, I agree that the objections raised are really part of the continuing effort to attack the president’s legitimacy. The mentality of the objectors is identical to that of gun-toting attendees at town hall meetings.

    BTW, does anyone think we could make money selling t-shirts with the following slogan?: “My dog just watered your Tree of Liberty.”

    clearly its time for the First Annual Top Ten Jonathan Turley Blog T-shirt contest.

    your suggestion will be collected with all others and an independent panel of say, 2L’s will judge them and we will publish the top ten.
    of course we will sell them.
    there is no underestimating what the average american will choose to advertize across his/her chest just for the hell of it.

  10. I wanted to say a little more on this but had to get dinner for my grandchildren and that takes precedence.

    Whenever we see our world and the nations that comprise it strictly in political terms, we miss the point of what is really going on. All of human history has been the story of people struggling for power over others, but using either religion, or politics, or both as the justification. The concepts of Liberal/Conservative/Progressive/Left Wing/Right Wing are just made up dichotomies to justify the individual human lust for power and the rewards power brings. This is just as true with religions be they Christianity/Islam/Judaism/LDS/Scientology/Hinduism/Buddhism, etc., etc. Also forgotten in this mix is the various economic theories that merely serve as justification for those seeking to rule, control and get all the attractive members of the sex that turns them on.

    Our current American Corporatism is yet another version of the feudal system. CEO’s equal Dukes and Counts for instance.
    If this is to ever change we must redefine our politics into desired outcomes, rather than theoretical policy positions.

    For instance:
    I believe in the maximum amount of freedom for the individual
    human being. Business entities don’t count.

    I believe that all humans should have certain inalienable rights: Food, shelter, health care, clothing.

    I believe that the above is apolitical because the truth is that the resources of the planet belong to all of us and for too long they have been monopolized by selfish entities intent on maximization of power.

    I believe in the total equality of the sexes, all races and all forms of non-exploitative sexual preference.

    I think our founding Fathers made a start towards the above, or at least were heading in the right direction. From the beginning though,our Constitution was poisoned by the slavery issue and by chattel status for women.

    By getting hung up in various political/religious ideologies we miss the greater picture, which is that this is all really driven psychologically and genetically. We organize ourselves like the Great Apes and everywhere see nations run by strict hierarchy. However, just as with the Great Apes, where the setup is supposed to ensure only the top ape gets all the females, there are others in the hierarchy trying to get to the top. This is what happens in today’s Corporate World, which is mixed in with “Patrician” Family Dynasties.

    All of these people (factions) are far too greedy and selfishly inclined to truly work together and in that fact lays our opportunity. They are hierarchical, but not monolithic. There are differences between the parties and within the parties as various factions compete for power. This is a structure that can be destabilized to our advantage.

    However, within the opportunity also lies the danger. The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution were all necessary to end evil, exploitative systems. The problem was that those who took power, while mouthing “Liberte, Fraternite and Egalitie,” actually decided that they liked and deserved to be in charge.

    The task in the end is trying to evolve the human race and free ourselves from the control of our “Lizard Brains.” Until then, the best we can do is achieve small victories to stave off the possibility of complete totalitarian control that lies within the grasp of our technological advances. To accomplish anything we must not only organize ourselves, but build alliances with those who have somewhat common interests.

    Besides the elite, the only “solid” group in this country are the 20%, or so who are fundamentalist freaks. They achieve power because their presence allows the elite to keep us fighting among ourselves and so they have the support of the elite. “We” on the other hand are more interested in politicians passing tests of political purity, than staving off the wolves at our doors.

  11. Mike A.,

    Oh yeah, come in here and make a sensible suggestion why don’t you! That’s the only problem there. You’re preaching common sense to Congress! Now that’s a rock and a hill . . .

  12. And see? Here’s members of both parties showing EXACTLY why they need to go one way or the other. Here’s the Gang of Six, just begging to end their careers by wanting to charge individuals fines for not having health insurance. Or to get desperate poor people to shoot at them. Either one is fine with me.

    Guess which finger I’m holding up, Gang?

    You’d collect that fine from me when Hell freezes solid. Got that? S-O-L-I-D. Why not just bring a gun to the hold up, you bought and paid for fascist scumbag graft weasel jackass criminals. Steal their video games and tennis shoes while you’re at it. Or here’s an idea . . . get the insurance industry that’s been bankrolling you clowns for years to pay the fines out of their ill-gotten profits BEFORE you go to a single citizen for payment. Otherwise? I hope you idiots don’t need to go outside very often. You are literally doing something so stupid that YOU (no one else but YOU) are putting yourselves in actual personal physical danger. Good show. And if you don’t believe that? Try and levy that fine on some poor guy who’s being bankrupted by his ailing wife’s condition not covered by your corporate insurance masters, some poor desperate guy who you are helping dismantle his life so you and your masters can make money and keep your lot at the graft trough. Odds are, eventually you’ll piss off someone crazy enough to take out the one(s) they perceive as having destroyed their life. He’s got hurt and anger and guns. He’s got lots of life insurance that will pay off if your security detail kills him. Just to take care of his wife because you insisted on adding insult to injury. All because you lot were so stupid and short sighted that fining someone for not having health insurance seemed even REMOTELY like a good idea. If they could pay for a ridiculous fine you propose, Senatorial Dumbasses, they could pay for the damn insurance. Duh. You are a bunch of simple creatures. Greedy, vicious and stupid, but simple.

    Natural selection at work.

    Gang of Six, your grade for natural selection is “F-“.

    You better not flunk the mid-term if you don’t want to see exactly how poorly you understand the psychology of the sick and the desperate. Because I promise you fines are only going to cause trouble. Some of it for you personally. And lots of it.

    Enjoy the fruits of your labors.

  13. I agree with Buddha and Mike S. on the problem of corporatism. But I don’t think it can be handled by weakening the First Amendment. Since corporations are purely creatures of statute, the best course would be significant revisions to the laws relating to corporate formation and governance.

  14. Gyges,

    What Mike said strikes to the essence of the problem. It’s a hydra. If it were just Big Oil, or just Big Pharma, or just Big Ag, it would be easier. I sole enemy to focus our attention upon. The problem is even bigger than having multiple lines of graft. The problem is itself systemic. You’ll never totally eliminate graft by process improvements. It won’t happen as a matter of human nature. But you can mitigate and minimize the damage and access to the system by corporate actors. You can do a helluva lot better than they are in D.C. right now. Now our lobbying system really is just graft called something else to keep pols from being hung from tress like Xmas ornaments. There’s not any other way to characterize the lobby industry other than graft if one is honest about it. There’s no attempt to seriously curtail corporate influence from either party. That’s why the left is as big a problem as the right since Obama showed he’s all talk and no walk. Obstructionists are obstructionists whether they do it purposefully, out of sheer stupidity or spinelessness. The change we all wanted and voted for is being obstructed by BOTH sides. To me? That just means both side have to go.

  15. “I’ve reread this discussion about 4 times now. I still have no idea why people kept bringing up how “the left is part of this theater too.”

    While I agree with your take perhaps the “Left” gets involved in the discussion because of statements like this:

    “And if we’re going to condemn racism then doesn’t it have to be condemned even when praciticed by a black man who is president?”

    As far as the concept of a Corporatocracy I’ve been there for years. The problem is it is not a unified entity, but a collection of rivals with sometimes similar interests. Think the Court of Louis XIV.

  16. Gyges,

    I think I may have not been clear. I don’t feel one way or the other about the speech. It’s not out of line with tradition. I meant more in general.

Comments are closed.