Speech

Why Joe Wilson shouldn't have apologized

Last night, President Obama made a speech before a joint session of Congress assembled for that purpose.  As he went through the various points of the Healthcare proposal(s), he got to a point at which he said that illegal aliens would not be provided care in the bill under consideration.

Joe Wilson, a Republican member of Congress from South Carolina, shouted:

"You lie!"

There was something of a minor firestorm after the speech had ended, and John McCain, another pragmatic centrist(and loser,)  condemned Wilson's outburst.

I applaud Joe Wilson, and apparently, the phones at his DC and district offices have been ringing ever since, mostly with the approving voice of support from across the nation.

While Wilson's outburst was a breech of congressional decorum, it is nevertheless important to recognize what it signifies: A general frustration among Conservative Republicans that the Democrats are lying, not 'misleading' or 'obfuscating', but flat-out lying about their healthcare plans.

In committee, an amendment was offered by Sam Johnson to strictly prohibit insurance to illegal aliens, but it was voted down by Democrats.  This is the proof in the pudding supporting Joe Wilson's claim: The President lied. And lies. And lies.

And lies.

This small outburst, condemned by moderates and pragmatists in the Republican party, is exactly what Republicans need to win.  Why do people like McCain always come out on the side of our opponents?  You'd think he'd have learned that he can gain no friends by this, but true to his instincts for wanting to remain inoffensive, McCain comes down on the side of Democrats again.  What of Joe Wilson's claim?  It is true. The President lied. And lies. McCain didn't mention that fact, and didn't address the subject of Wilson's outburst, but only the outburst itself.

It is instructive to recognize that McCain's amnesty agenda for illegal aliens is undoubtedly part of his motive. It's also instructive to recognize that for all the ill Obama is doing, had we elected McCain last fall, our situation might indeed be worse: We would probably have had some form of bail-outs; we likely would have some attempt at healthcare reform, and by now, we would have had the latest iteration of McCain's comprehensive immigration reform bill. McCain supports some form of Cap and Tax, so we might well have had that by now, too. The difference is that Republicans would have been disarmed against it because of a Republican president, just as over the last eight years, Republicans went along in many instances with George Bush's agenda on prescription drugs and education.

While it is objectively a horrible thing for the country that Barack Obama is president, it would be worse for the Republican party to have won with another 'centrist-pragmatist' like John McCain.  Joe Wilson was right: Barack Obama is lying. John McCain sold him out. Again.

Was the reaction to next Tuesday's school address by Obama 'Astroturf?'

That's one of the questions being posed at present. The Whitehouse is treating this as a tempest in a teapot, but it was severe enough to cause them to re-write their lesson plans and re-think the president's speech. Another question being posed, by ridiculous leftists and their shills, is whether this opposition is motivated by Mr. Obama's race. I consider the source, and suggest strongly to fellow right-wingers that while they should keep the bulk of their political powder dry for bigger targets, they must nevertheless expend a little ammo where needed. This is such a case, and a perfect target.

Today's educational establishment is dominated by leftists, both at the state and federal levels. It is dominated by the teachers' unions, which have been quite supportive and sympathetic to the cause of Obama and the leftist agenda. To pretend otherwise is to ignore all facts, but what is more stunning is that most American parents, busy with earning a paycheck, and leading their lives, have essentially surrendered this ground to the left.

As in virtually every issue, the left becomes arrogant when they control an institution, branch of government, or agency.  This is equally true of the education establishment.  From the time Jimmy Carter and his hacks conceived the Department of Education, the federal government has taken an increasingly dominant role in education, yet I cannot find that spot in the Constitution that enables the federal government to spend a single dime in that endeavor.

Many parents, particularly those on the right, have justly become concerned at the direction of the schools.  After more than a generation of federal domination, the schools increasingly resemble self-propagating institutions that wield too much power in their communities, frequently dominating smaller and even larger municipalities and counties. In many cases, the budgets of school districts far outstrip the local city governments, and are the ever-growing 800 pound gorillas in their communities.  Watching the growth, one parent commented to me recently after a school board meeting in our local district: "They used to say you can't fight city hall, but hell, they're a push-over compared to the school board. They do anything they want, usually out of sight, and out of mind."

So it was that this notion of an address to all school children by Obama was hatched, and since there's some precedent, what with George Bush reading books to children, and his father having tried to pull off a similar thing(to raucous cat-calls from the left) in October 1991, it really isn't a surprise that this would be tried again.  What was a little more than stunning to the administrations of schools around the country was the violence of the reaction against it by an enraged or at least concerned outcry from parents.

Parents did not want their children subjected to propaganda. Imagine that!  That the reaction was more uproarious in so-called 'red states' really isn't a surprise, since they didn't vote for this President, but a little more surprising was the reaction in states that voted for Obama in 2008.

Parents were unaware of what Obama might say, but they had the package of exercises and questions pushed out by the Department of Education as a follow-up guide to the President's speech.  That was enough.

Now, the funny thing, the odd thing about this whole story, is not what has been written or reported, but what has not been mentioned at all.  The left, along with the President's spokepersons, dismissed the whole thing as some form of 'silly season' or 'astroturf.' Yet what had they not been able to say?  Over the healthcare bill, they pointed to talk radio, and to Rush Limbaugh, as their arch enemies, simply out to taunt them any way he (and they)could.  In this case, however, Rush was on vacation.  The alleged leader of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' was absent from behind the golden microphone.  His substitute hosts really hadn't wanted to talk about it, but they were left with no choice: Callers made it the issue. This was repeated throughout the country, on local and national talkshows, in the blogosphere, and on message boards and forums.  The reaction was viral, and it had not been manufactured at EIB or in the GOP headquarters.  Conservative Americans didn't like it.

In the end, most school districts relented, particularly in 'red states.'  The speech would be recorded, or viewing and participation optional, or other solutions.  You might wonder why the schools, havens of leftist thought, would so easily capitulate.  I am here to tell you the answers to that question:

1.) The immediate effect would have been that hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of parents would have withheld their kids from school next Tuesday.  Remember, public schools are the recipients of federal funds, based on daily attendance that amounts to roughly $35 per head.  This would have made a serious dent in their budgets directly in the beginning of the school year.  In a year in which tax revenues have been down, and passage of local bond elections more difficult owing to higher unemployment, they couldn't risk alienating any parents.

2.) It won't matter anyway. Whether Barack Obama speaks directly to your children on Tuesday, or the educational establishment merely speaks on his behalf for the remainder of the school year, and ever after, they will have their say.  They will make their best attempt at indoctrinating your children, whether or not President Obama's ever given access directly to their young minds.

This is why I would personally urge conservative and libertarian parents alike to pull their kids on Tuesday anyway, and any other day they think the schools have gone too far.  The penalty the school will pay in lost headcount dollars is worth the lesson they will learn.  Schools have increasingly become populated by a faculty that views parents and parental authority with contempt.  They now routinely refer to the children entrusted to them as 'their kids.'  Many of them feel that this is their special calling, to step into the legal role, acting in loco parentis, and have their ways with the minds of your children, through ways large and small, 'making the world a better place' by indoctrinating your children with their moral standards.

There are a great number of very good, sincere and dedicated teachers, and not a few conservatives among their number, but the overwhelming majority are of a leftward tilt, and their bureaucracy is constructed to strict leftwing standards. It is inevitable that too much political indoctrination, and even moral indoctrination in contradiction to parental wishes goes on in public schools.  Take this opportunity to send them a message, and don't be afraid to change direction, get involved with your kids' schools, and even enter the field of teaching.  Conservatives have yielded this ground for too long, and it's time we begin to think about taking it back. Show them that there's nothing silly about this season.

side-bar to editors: Is there some reason comments posted to an earlier entry might have disappeared? THANKS!

President Obama will address the nation’s school children on Tuesday. I guess that would be fine if he were doing it at a time when parents and their children could gather around the television and listen and discuss it together. Or when parents could decide they didn’t want their children to listen to the President at all. But there is something creepy about the President of the United States going live on television into our schools during a normal school day. That sounds like something Chairman Mao might do. What’s next? His face painted on the side of buildings all over town? Why is President Obama taking this time? Is his ego really that bloated? What does he have to say to our kids that is so important, so worthwhile, that the learning process has to be suspended to accommodate it? Why does he want to talk to them without their parents around?

 That will be time that no math will be learned, no science will be taught, no language skills learned. (I would say it would be a time when no history will be taught, but that seems to be the case already.) If he wants to encourage them to stay in school, to study hard and to strive toward good grades – great. But he can do that with a Public Service Announcement.

I don’t intend to allow my children to participate unless I’m allowed to be with them. Obama is not a teacher, so he is not the reason my sons are in school. He will be interfering with the reason they are there. I’m equally concerned about how the teachers will handle the affair. There are some conservative teachers, but academia is clearly a stronghold of liberalism. The idea that the president’s message may be innocuous and benign is not the point. If this precedent is established, that may not always be the case. This is a bad idea, and shouldn’t happen. Our schools should at least try to be propaganda free zones.

I suggest finding out if your kid’s school will be participating. If so, see if you can go with your kids. If that doesn’t work, maybe we should all find some real educational activity for our kids – away from school.

Here is the “study guide” from the White House suggested to be used in conjunction with the speech;

During the Speech:

• As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. 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?

• Students can record any questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

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?

In the interest of real learning, I suggest a few additional talking points;

• Can you find which part of the Constitution allows the president to use tax dollars to buy banks, car companies, and insurance companies?
• Where does the federal government get the authority to implement health care policies for the citizenry?
• Where does the President plan to put the war prisoners when he closes the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
• Why did the President call the policeman stupid when he arrested the professor in Massachusetts?
• Where is the President going to get all the money he needs to pay for all the stuff he is buying?

That should make for an interesting afternoon discussion time, don’t you think?

more at http://commonconservativesense.com

I wonder what George Washington would think if he were alive today and reflected on the lives shed to build this nation and this new government and his precious Constitution?

Below is his advice, and also a caveat with respect to borrowing and credit. It would appear if we had heeded his advice, our country would not be facing the crisis which have now afflicted us......

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations.

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who shouldlabor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. 

Though the title of this post is facetious, I cannot deny what I just witnessed. I had never heard Sarah Palin give a speech until tonight. I now know why John McCain chose her for his running mate. In fact, I have to say that, at least tonight, she was perfectly vetted.

As far as political theater goes, if we can reduce tonight to so small and cynical a concept, this was the best show I've ever seen. Gov. Palin is country feisty with a smile; she carries a hint of redneck incredulity about her that is squarely aimed at the temerity and presumption of Ivy League and Beltway elitism. She looked quite stunning as she delivered lines that will be iconic by morning. And she created a metaphor that sticks: She's a pitbull with lipstick.

And her family! Oh, my gosh, were they not perfect? Her husband beaming with pride and love; her girls, one pregnant, all smiling and waving and looking lovely, with a future son-in-law in tow; the little baby Trig getting a quick swab of sisterly saliva as his big sister preened him; and the humble gratitude of her mother and father -- Egads! Could it have been written any better? Just seeing her youngest daughter waving, so innocently and with such earnestness, was enough to touch countless heartstrings. Seriously, I am not saying that the McCain-Palin ticket is the better ticket, I am only saying that I have never seen anything like this before. The whole thing was simply amazing. How could anyone disagree?

But the theater of it all, even if it was much more than theater, is short-lived. I recognize that Gov. Palin's speech was filled with criticisms of Sen. Obama (many of which were quite clever, I must say). I know that she infuriated countless pro-Obama supporters; she flirted with being incendiary. I saw it, heard it, felt it; and I could almost hear folks around the country screaming at their TVs. But what she did tonight is at least part of the political game, and it is quite clear that senators Obama and Biden have their work cut out for them. Gov. Palin, even without John McCain, is a formidable opponent. So I brace myself for what comes next for all involved, Republican and Democrat. I pray we won't witness anything so unfairly brutal or brutally unfair that we regret being Americans.

Here's hoping for a fair and even fight in the days ahead.

Prediction: After tonight, Democrats everywhere will be arguing that the next Democratic Convention in 2012 should follow rather than precede the Republican Convention. Surely they see how easy it was for Gov. Palin to playfully but effectively mock the "styrofoam Greek pillars" of the Democratic National Convention, no?

Peace.

©Contratimes/2008. All Rights Reserved.

Well. That was awesome. I'm awash in a hardy glow of Sarah Palin's rockstar glory.

We could not have asked for a stronger statement from her than this. I'll get my one criticism out of the way first: I would not have concluded with Vietnam. No one can do more justice to the service than Fred and Huck did in their speeches, and I thought the obliqueness she began with towards his service really underscored his service and her son's, but didn't hit you over the head with the details we all know. But this is a tiny, tiny complaint. (Patrick Ruffini has kindly provided the text of the speech here, so that's where these are all coming from.)

Critically, she came out poised from the beginning. Of course, Rudy and Huck pulled everything out of their bag of tricks to get people loosened up and fired up in the Excel Center -- Rudy totally rocking the scrappy pep rally vibe of the audience, and Huck (who I preferred) telling that really wonderful story about the desks.

This speech was huge, though, and she didn't flinch. At all. Sarah Palin came out with guns blazing, re-introducing the family, and ensuring that the image people have of her tomorrow is a woman who can knock the hell out of a speech. The enumeration of what she has done as governorwas so choice. It feels like we haven't heard anything about factual things anyone has done all week, until she started in on the pipeline, the tax cuts, the surplus, the removal of excess perks.

The highlight, from a policy standpoint, was the little overture on foreign oil dependence and drilling here: