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.
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.”
MIke A writes: The president is speaking to school children. A few will be genuinely inspired to imagine things they have never imagined. A few will be curious about what the president has to say. A few will regard this as a welcome respite from the rest of the school day. The vast majority will half-listen, half-daydream and remember virtually nothing that is said. There is nothing more to it than that.
yeah but its a black president and so there you are. parents who object do so because they don’t want their kids to think for themselves and see that this is not a commie fire-breather Kenyan illegal alien who took over the country for his own nefarious purposes but a stand up guy who spoke reasonably.
I heard this woman on Fox about 15 minutes ago give a very politicized rationale for keeping her 13 year old out of school. instead she directed her to the internet machine and had her calculate ( ! ) how much her share of Obama’s national debt will be her responsibility. It came to “over” $600,000 and this women thinks it will take her kid 12 years to pay it off. I don’;t know what kind of calculator she was using or what kind of financial future she believes her kid will have.
the fox guy actually accused her of being more political than the President and this woman caved in and said that she resented the President’s adenga being “shoved down her throat”
my question for her and others like her is this: how exactly has her life changed for the worse since Obama’s inauguration and which agenda items are responsible for her being worse off….. if she really is.
The simple fact that this topic has generated almost 100 responses convinces me that the right has succeeded in politicizing virtually every aspect of discourse in this country. After following the debate here and in other media, I have been alternately amused, bewildered and annoyed. The president is speaking to school children. A few will be genuinely inspired to imagine things they have never imagined. A few will be curious about what the president has to say. A few will regard this as a welcome respite from the rest of the school day. The vast majority will half-listen, half-daydream and remember virtually nothing that is said. There is nothing more to it than that.
Buddha and Jill,
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.”
President Obama did something I wish more politicians and influential people would do; he encouraged children to get the most out of their education. Some fire-breathers leaped on this as an excuse to rouse some rabble.
How exactly does that mean that both the right and the left manipulate public opinion?
Why not just say “this behavior is wrong” and leave it at that. The obsession with blaming both sides is just as wrong in some situations as only blaming one side is in others.
Gyges,
It doesn’t have to be false, but if it is false, then the creators have greater control over the content of the lie than they would controlling any “naturally” occurring division that can be exploited. I suspect both are in play as a practical matter.
Why I chose to use the modifier “false” was for that reason and this one: at it’s core, it is false that rules the day. The reason it’s false is because of the lobbying/graft issue. Neither side is working for We the People anymore. The illusion that they are is a false dichotomy. Obama’s waffling and non-action proved that one quite nicely. One parties masters are outright evil, but the other party is too spineless to do anything about the criminals because they can’t without also biting the hand that feeds them too. The false dichotomy of difference between R and D is merely a distraction from the fact that there is no material difference, only different corporate masters.
Buddha,
I just don’t see why the dichotomy has to be false for your scenario. It’s a much more effective and simpler strategy to just manipulate the two parties into your control and then playing them off each other than it is to manipulate the two parties until there is only one party, the whole time instructing the leadership of both parties to keep pretending there is a difference.
I’m not saying that the two parties don’t work together sometimes. I’m not saying that the leadership isn’t owned by the same people. I’m saying that the differences between the two are real and not (as far as they are concerned) “just for show.” Use Ockham’s razor. Which is simpler and more likely: Two parties competing for the same money trying to out please their master, while highlighting the differences that remain so as to give the voters a reason to choose one over the other, or one party engaged in an elaborate act (think of everything that would have to be faked on all sorts of different levels) to pretend that it’s two different parties?
Gyges,
This is a really interesting post by Jeremy Scahill:
“Sarah Palin, the Neocons & Howard Dean Love the War in Afghanistan”
http://rebelreports.com/
Isn’t it really strange that this group and these people would all agree with Obama that we should spend more money, kill more civilians and kill/wound more of our own people on this goal? And it isn’t the only thing the far right, a large number of Congressional Democrats and Obama agree on. We have the same people in charge of the financial mess who caused it. We have their general agreement on not enforcing the Constitution. That’s too many major policies, crucial to life and death, to keep ignoring they virtually all agree on the same policy.
Gyges,
I’ll let Buddha’s argument speak for me. I’m obviously not getting my own points across. Here’s what you write:
“Why would you assume that a group capable of creating this enormous and convincing of a farce would go to all the trouble of faking a division when there was a pre-existing one? One that they can exploit for their own gain.”
There is no need to create a fake division. In fact it works much better to amplify and misdirect the ones that already exist. So I agree with you. What I am trying to say is that we the people must reach out to each other when that is possible. We must resist the divide and conquor strategy that the govt. puts forth.
“The corporate Aristocracy might own the souls of both parties, but it’s in their interest to make sure they stay two separate parties competing for power.”
The illusion of control requires the creation of a false dichotomy. The dynamic of false struggle, the appearance of choice, is a prime tool for both propagandists and tyrants. It’s a distraction. You need bullies or there will be no fights to fix. That’s language even Don King could easily understand. But also like all distractions, it is ultimately doomed to failure when the desires of the tyrannical meets the cold hard reality that the governors only rule at the consent of the governed in ANY type of political system. There are limits to how many times one can cross We the People without consequence. It’s true for the individual and the corporation. There is no denying the math behind it. There is also the fact not every coin turns up heads unless you are Rosencrantz. In their arrogance, corporate America thinks they can rig the game in toto and unbalance society at their whim without fear of retribution. In their greed, myopia and short memories they are too stupid to realize that’s simply not possible. The needs of the many do indeed outweigh the desires of the few. Whether one party realizes this in time to do something about it or has the will to do something about it before it’s too late remains to be seen.
Jill,
I’m sorry, but having the same master doesn’t make two things the same entity. Neither does working for common goals.
Why would you assume that a group capable of creating this enormous and convincing of a farce would go to all the trouble of faking a division when there was a pre-existing one? One that they can exploit for their own gain.
It’s like Employee of the Month awards. I’m not going to work harder to become Employee of the Month if I know that the only other person that could get it is me wearing an eyepatch and calling myself “The Pirate Captain.” If there’s somebody else competing for the prize then I have motivation to actually compete.
The corporate Aristocracy might own the souls of both parties, but it’s in their interest to make sure they stay two separate parties competing for power.
“However, I disagree that any white president would have been able to make this same speech without complaint. People are afraid of the sheer pace of change in their lives as the economy continues to go south, and the pace of change that Obama is offering in many policy areas has people genuinely fearful that we’re exceeding the airspeed limits of whatever craft we’re flying in. I am sympathetic to that argument.”
The President has proven to be rather moderate. Your feeling that “people are afraid the sheer pace of change” has no basis in reality. What pace of change are you referring to? Health Care reform?
I think not most people (per legitimate polls)still want it. The economy? I think not also. This economy has been tanking since the Reagan years made “Investment Banking” and the Stock Market our chief industries. This administration’s reforms thus far have been rather timid and wholly approved by the Financial Establishment. The negative “chatter” has come from a well financed and wholly racist, fundamentalist Right Wing and from those on the Left who would think that somehow Dennis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader could have made a real difference.
What we are seeing is the propaganda thrusts of a minority (20%?)who can’t stand the idea of a Black President. This is obvious in things like the “birther” movement and the claim that he is a secret Muslim.
One of the things that has changed racially in this country since the 50’s is that even racists feel they must hide their venom in code, though with Rush, Billo, Glenn and Sean this is even breaking down. To ignore the meaning behind the code that denotes racism is to hide one’s head in the sand. To me this is all too familiar
What astonishes me is actually those on the Left, who are hyper critical of this Administration’s pace of change, while having the insight to understand how close to Fascism this Country really was when he took office. Ventillating certainly helps dissipate one’s anxiety, however, it rarely works at the cause of the anxiety unless it follows the insights of the facts available. In plainer terms: When you’ve got a corrupt cash driven system, with few heroes rising above it, one’s political purity is a luxury of ignorance.
My generation might have ended the Viet Nam War a lot earlier, if it hadn’t spent all of its’ time and energy castigating those whose support was necessary for the task. My radical friends hated the liberals and centrists more than they did the Nixonian Fascists and unfortunately untold thousands of Vietnamese and American troops had to pay the ultimate price of these “purists” smug ignorance.
Swarthmore mom,
I agree. Obama is entitled to give the message to the school children as Reagan and Bush Sr. were. I also agree that many of these people do not want a black president addressing their children, period. We are in complete agreement on these points. The misunderstanding is, I am not arguing with these points. I am talking about something very different.
Yes, Jill, Obama is as entitled to give the message to the school children as Reagan and Bush Sr were. Many of these people do not want a black president addressing their children, period.
It’s a matter of relative scale in re the composition of those objecting to Obama’s speech. The bottom line is that both are true. While there are many who would take Jill’s stance on principle, I’m willing to bet they are far outnumbered by the simple racist elements Mike points toward. Many of the detractors are indeed doing so based on simple racism, but this does not negate that Obama is proving just another bad actor vis a vis the Constitution and the rule of law or that a certain percentage of parents would object on those perfectly legitimate grounds.
I agree with you puzzling. 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? Obama’s economic policies have resulted in a disproportionate number of black children going hungry and of black families losing their homes. By far the largest numbers of civilians killed because of Obama’s insisitence on empire are brown. Racist is as racist does. And here is where I must reiterate my main point. This is a president who skillfully uses the media to manipulate the population of this nation.
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. We need to open our eyes, quit falling for the manipulation and turn this country around.
Make fun of this all you want, but ever since reading Obama’s speech, I cannot stop washing my hands and muttering “yes, I can; yes I can” over and over.
Mespo,
It was a teachable moment on how not to act when your country is under attack and you knew that you had screwed up!
Jill and Mike S, Mike, I in major part agree that racism plays a prominent role in this controversy (as well as the birthers, 10ers and all those loony ‘ers’) but I see the racism that is inherent in many people being fostered or unleashed (with no condemnation from the Republicans, Democrats or media) as a tool. To deligitimize Obama is to deligitimize his stated goals. Who benefits from that? Follow the money.
Jill, I don’t think I misunderstood what you were saying; dealing with the devil on issues (or parts of issues) in common is not something I ever hesitated or would hesitate to do in the interest of maintaining the ‘purity’ of a cause. I’d rather win than be pure 🙂 I was just pointing out that there are a bunch of people that can’t be dealt with and IF, IF Obama is serious, he needs to adopt different tactics.
One of the most virulently and overtly racist people I know voted for Obama and hoped his vote would help to elect a President. His only motivation was money. He works in a trade that hasn’t been and still isn’t doing well and Obama’s stated goals of green jobs and economic stimulus would help him meet his major survival need- a job that pays decent money. After working for 40 years his future at the most basic level is seriously threatened and Obama had the platform that made sense on that level. He knows it’s us and them economically and he’s angry about it. He’s a racist but he’s not delusional or stupid – he knew his racism was a luxury he couldn’t indulge at the ballot box this time.
Obama needs to speak to his economic fear and anger because the majority of us (aside from that crazy 26% many of whom are racist) are just as angry and fearful and not as terminally stupid as we may on occasion look to be.
rafflaw:
“…I didn’t think the blank stare into space can be defined as a speech!”
**************
No, but it was a “teachable moment” to use the latest cliche’.
Mike,
Let me first say that I agree with you that part of the opposition to Obama is, in fact, motivated by racism. I am certainly no apologist for the right wing, and I somewhat enjoy the hand-wringing exasperation and outrage that comes when the executive power abused under Bush II was taken over and applied by Obama to different ends. As far as I’m concerned, the right has no standing to argue that Obama is abusing his authority. Bush abused a lot more than just his authority for virtually all of his eight years, and we’ll be paying for it for generations, both in terms of debt and risks to our long-term national security. The right cheered him on all the way.
However, I disagree that any white president would have been able to make this same speech without complaint. People are afraid of the sheer pace of change in their lives as the economy continues to go south, and the pace of change that Obama is offering in many policy areas has people genuinely fearful that we’re exceeding the airspeed limits of whatever craft we’re flying in. I am sympathetic to that argument.
If there were a President Hillary Clinton who had proposed policy changes with the depth and scale that President Obama has, the opposition to her national address to school children would have been identical. That wouldn’t have made the opposition to her proposal sexist.