| He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future. -Adolf Hitler |
|
|
|
| Written by Cerebral Debris | |
| Monday, 07 September 2009 15:45 | |
|
A friend on Facebook stated that she didn't understand why people were "afraid" to send their kids to school to see Obama speak and that we should respect the office of the presidency. Of course, she received adoration for her comment and dissenters received liberal hissy fits. I can only reprint my replies, but I figure it's good for my first post here in quite some time. So, my first reponse was: Respect for the office of the presidency- yes. Respect for the man in that office- no. A man who is trampling our constitution at every turn and working to dismantle this great country as we know it is not worthy of respect nor the attention of my kids. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with the fact that I simply don't want my kids listening to or watching- as a captive audience- someone who hasn't a single policy that I agree with. Someone I believe is an evil person with evil intentions. **** is right on the money- he can do a prime-time address and let parents be involved in it at home with their kids. That would be the respectful thing to do, but these people have no respect for the family or parental authority. They've injected themselves further into our lives than they were ever intended to. Oh, the fiery wrath that was unleashed on me for those remarks. One guy, whom I'll refer to simply as liberal jackass, started comparing Obama to Bush and demanded that I show him just one way Obama has trampled the Constitution.This was after he said he wanted to "take me behind the woodshed". Okay grandpa, I'm sure you fancy yourself a real American badass... but I digress. I obliged: No one said Bush did a wonderful job of defending our constitution. No one said Obama is the only one who's trampling it. Bush did plenty to shame himself in that manner. Funny how people automatically start the comparison game when no comparison was ever introduced.
You can speak to me about God's children all you want, ****. You can play the hippie-dippy love one another to your hearts content. A man who supports the killing of God's unborn is not someone I am willing to cooperate with, and I'm surprised you choose to ignore that. A man who won't protect a child in the event of a botched abortion is not a man I will cooperate with under any circumstance. This man has no respect for our Constitution. He's wily enough to know how to circumvent it through the use of Czars... lots of Czars. No checks, no balances, just Czars. Unelected, unchecked regulatory bureaucrats... he may as well shred the Constitution, because he certainly has no intention of adhering to it. Circumventing the Constitution- whether through the use of Czars or the use of international treaties or any other manner of under-handed backdoor manipulation- IS violating the Constitution by not adhering to it! There are countless reasons I didn't vote for Obama. Cooperation is not an option when I believe the man and his administration are completely wrong for this country, even a danger to it. When you believe something is wrong, you don't compromise or cooperate with it- you draw a line and you fight it at every turn. For the anti-Bushers out there- don't pretend that you "cooperated" with him in any way. You fought him and his policies at every turn too, so don't act like the opposition to Obama is doing anything different than you did for eight years. "'Judge me by the people who surround me" -Barack Obama He surrounds himself with people who support population control, people who don't consider infants and the elderly to be 'human' and people who embrace Communist dictators like Hugo Chavez (himself included). He surrounds himself with America-hating, liberty loathing self-proclaimed communists and fascists. He surrounds himself with all manner of feculent failures of humanity and liberty... and he is being judged by it at his own request. This man and his administration are not not a group of people I am willing to subject my kids to at any level. Look it up, there's not one untruth written in the above paragraph... or any to follow. On to the constitution- Read the 5th Amendment, then look at the government seizure of Chrysler. Where was due process implemented in that case? It wasn't. It's a blatant constitutional violation. Obama had no Constitutional authority to do what he did to Chrysler. It was a judicial matter and he violated the separation of powers. Look up the history of H.R. 3081- State foreign operations appropriations bill, where Obama attempted to violate the Constitution once again. It had to be amended to keep Obama from knowingly violating the Constitution. He also violated the Constitution by shifting oversight of the census from the Secretary of Commerce to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. You see, liberals are always wanting to "interpret" the constitution, even though it's written in plain English and has been clarified by James Madison himself. Look up the Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817. They need the constitution to be "interpreted" so that they can contort it any way they like... sort of like standing on front of a funhouse mirror. There's plenty more, but this being a comments section and not a proper debate forum, I'm limited to a few things for the sake of brevity. I for one will not compromise my core values and beliefs for the sake of cooperation. I've chosen my side and stand behind my convictions. This man will get no cooperation from me on any level. "He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future." -Adolf Hitler Sigh, yet again, here comes another telling me that the president deserves respect simply because he's... well, the president. Again I replied: I disagree. Respect for the office is a must. Respect for the person in that office has to be earned. I have to wonder if you would still say that if it were Chavez, Castro or Ahmadinejad in that position. Would you still maintain that they are worthy of respect simply because they hold that position? Same response along with concern that my kids are going to grow up misinformed. Again, I replied: So I 'll ask it again: would you still say that if it were Chavez, Castro or Ahmadinejad in that position? Would you still suggest that they "entertain" the ideas of those men? My son can tell you more about Obama's actual policies than a lot of the people who voted for him, so don't worry yourself about them not being presented with misinformation. It doesn't take a village ****, it takes a family. While we're on the subject of misinformation... Our kids are at a disadvantage the minute they start school. They are inundated with liberal ideology and indoctrination the minute they set foot in public school. No opposing views. No alternative ideas to "entertain", so don't preach about misinformation when that's what our public school system deals in. Obama is already in our business too much. When schools made a daily habit of quoting Barack Obama (yes, every day) before the Pledge of Allegiance- as happened at the school blogger Adrienne Ross teaches at-, there's something seriously wrong. Aside from all this, it's amazing how the left refuses to acknowledge their own anger over the very same thing from the past: “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students. And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’ “ - Dick Gephardt; furious over Bush Sr's address to schools back in '91. Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs. -Quoted from an article at newsbusters.org Back to misinformation again. Arne Duncan, our own Secretary of Education, in reference to this very address dished out his own lie.. er, um... misinformation when he stated that this is "the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school." The secretary of education either doesn't know history, or is blatantly rewriting it. No surprise there. That's what they do. They are masters of historical revisionism. Anyhow, you can either fall for the guise of innocence or you can dig your heels in and fight against what you believe is wrong... it's your choice. That's America. In the meantime, the administration felt it necessary to revise the original plan. If there was nothing wrong with it, why did they find it necessary to revise it? They wouldn't have were it not for the backlash. Well, after that the conversation was reduced to what it always is. I was chastised for being too angry and it was implied that I was or should be affiliated with some wing-nut group from Kansas. Not sure, she didn't specify. My last reply before posting it here: Angry, yes, the cancer of liberalism makes me and millions of Americans very angry. A "'couple of sentences" out of 280+ articles? Life is a Cliff's Note... sad. (this was in reference to one of them telling me they had read a couple of sentences on my site and knew all they needed to about me) In the end, **** hasn't answered a question I've posed twice in response to her comments and **** asked for "one EFFING way" this administration has trampled our Constitution... I gave him 4. It always comes down to this. The fact is, you guys just can't stand the it that your beloved really isn't as loved as his lapdogs in the MSM have made him out to be. So what do you do? You either have a tantrum, go silent when facts are presented, ignore questions or as a last resort use the super-synaptically-challen ...typical. The original lesson plan the White House wanted teachers to use can be found HERE. The scrubbed and pasteurized speech is easily accessible online. In the end, you're either in this fight against this unconstitutional, fascist regime, or you're not. If you are, that means drawing the line and not crossing it. Period.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 994 Trackback(0)
Comments (0)
![]() Write comment
|
|
| Last Updated on Monday, 07 September 2009 17:14 |














