I would genuinely love to know where the current Administration gets its Constitutional authority for the take-over of private entities such as GM, medical insurance, banks and the like. I would love to know how you arrive at the idea that Obama is not violating the Constitution by creating a shadow government of unelected and unaccountable Czars empowered to make lasting changes on the American public without ever being discussed in the Congress. I want to know by what Constitutional authority he is spending money that can NEVER be paid-back? I want you to explain to us all - oh Constitutional scholar - just where in the Constitution does the power to fundamentally change our government into a Socialist one come from. Please tell me where does the federal government get its Constitutional power to usurp States rights? I for one can think of many egregious examples of the current (and former) Administrations overstepping the bounds of their Constitutional authority, but then I’m not as highly educated as some. How someone so learned could miss these many glaring examples (and more besides) and claim unabashedly that they do not see what all of the fuss is about defies logic. 

The argument that previous Administrations did it too, does not fly either. No other Administration before has done so much so fast in the history of the United States to fundamentally change this country into something that it was never intended to be. The framers had a very different understanding of the Constitution and its powers and limitations than dose the Obama Administration. I doubt seriously if many within the current Administration have even read, let alone take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution of the United States is not as many espouse a “living” document. The only “change” to its functioning requires a vote, and the office of the President does not get one no matter what the current occupant of the White House thinks!

By the way, there is no equivalence to what is happening today with the examples sited in your last post like women’s voting rights. Generational theft is not a right of the Federal Government.

As for Carter’s place in history, I’ll concede that his being the [worst ever] is my opinion and your take is yours. I just remember; the highest interest rates in history, the worst economy in history (excepting the “Great Depression”), the biggest American foreign policy humiliation in history and gas lines as just a few of the examples that bring me to that conclusion.

“Obama not violating the Constitution” would be laughable if it weren’t so very scarily true that he is.

Some people from the far right of political discourse were saying before Obama spoke to the nation’s school children September 8^th, that his intention was the evil indoctrination of our youth surmising that the speech would be a chance for the President to call the children to his side and agenda. Most folks of reason took a wait-and-see attitude. Now that the speech is over some of those very same early detractors are now saying that the speech given was not the speech intended, or the original speech.   They are claiming that had the Presidents “secret plan” not been “discovered” it would have been a very different speech entirely. These claims are baseless and altogether un-knowable.

What is true is that the speech was not dangerous, offensive or indoctrinating. What is true is that the President used his speech to inspire and motivate the youth of America.

So what was all the fuss about from the right? Did their early onset reaction make them look like reactionary kooks who bring nothing more than knee-jerk hysteria to the discourse? Or was there something more behind the threats to keep children home from school and angry phone calls to District Superintendents and talk of “opting out” of viewing the speech? The far left already thinks the worst of them and can never be persuaded to think it through. Then there are the rest of us.

The fault if there is any lies squarely on President Obama’s shoulders. This incident serves as an illustration of the fact that character counts, logic and thoughtful planning count too. The President has a credibility gap as large as the Grand Canyon with many Americans. While it is true for example that both Presidents Reagan and Bush-41 both did speak to students during their administrations; both limited their remarks to small (older) age groups and neither speech was delivered at a time that interfered with actual class-room instruction time. Neither speech attempted to include (all) students in America. Neither speech was delivered by an administration which implied that it should be compulsory and would be delivered as a secret “present” to everyone with no one knowing what would ultimately jump out of the box. One does not have to be a parent to realize for example, that one can not talk to kindergarteners and 12^th graders at the same time in the same way and have them both get the same message. Obama’s speech was timed to coincide with the first day of school for a majority of kids, teachers, parents and administrators. It does not take a genius to recognize that on the very first day of school at 9:00am (PST) all of those groups would have serious issues interrupting the start of school by stopping to listen to a speech. Teachers have barely begun to seat and learn the names of all of their new charges by 9:00am. School secretaries and administrators are still checking in new students at 9:00am. The kids are excited to see last year’s friends again and are in no mood for the musings of the President whom they’ve barely heard of. All of this after the final fun weekend of the summer. The President’s address came with instructions for teachers as to how they could best prepare students to listen and respond to the speech. How in the world on the first day of school do the Secretary of Education and the President of the United States think that teachers have time to “prepare” students “in advance” to listen to a speech delivered with such ridiculously short preparation? This flies in the face of common sense and all logic and thus has to make one wonder before-hand if there weren’t a hidden agenda behind it all?

If you couple the horrendous timing and logistics behind the speech with many people’s already raw feelings regarding this administration, it is no leap to see how frightened so many might be of the gift offered by this President. It’s a bit like pulling the finger of crazy Uncle Ed. You usually only do it once because you live with the image of what happened last time Uncle Ed came to visit and what could potentially happen if you trust him twice. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” President Obama is Americas Uncle Ed. Many do not trust him because they have seen and experienced his brand of “humor” before and simply want no part of it now. No one could blame people for being a bit stand-offish or even slightly reticent to accept the President’s offer to the children without properly vetting the gift first.

The President has a character problem with the American people too. That is another reason that folks were skeptical in giving him the benefit of the doubt by allowing him unfettered access to their kids. At school, students are a captive audience and parents must remain vigilant if they wish to protect them from the harm of discordant or down right false messages. Parents need to know in advance what is being taught; how and what are the agendas being pushed by outsiders on their little “skulls full of mush”. If they do not trust an individual for some reason then it is very logical for them to not believe with abandon that that person will do the right thing just because they promised it would be so. You wouldn’t let your child eat home made sweets at Halloween from a home you didn’t know because they appear delicious any more than you would let them be exposed to ideas that you felt could harm them. People will argue that “all” ideas have merit and none should be off the table of discussion. For children in particular, nothing could be further from the truth. A conversation about the dangers and evils of hate philosophies espoused by the KKK might be appropriate for older students but is hardly of value to little ones that are still learning to share toys with one another. Discussions of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) doctrine are not welcome by the average parent at any time. Adults can think and reason for themselves and by the time they get to college are perhaps grounded sufficiently to engage in serious issue dialogue, but not so every child. I do not mean to imply that the Presidents credibility gap has risen to that of NAMBLA; but to many Americans he is indeed crazy Uncle Ed and must be watched like a hawk lest he be let loose to wreck havoc on the children. The concern people feel is directly proportional to their fear of the individual or the unknown or the falsehoods that have caught them before. Had the President thought this through better and handled the speech differently he could have and would have eliminated the controversy altogether. To blame American parents for being thoughtless ideologues misses the point completely.