Earlier this week, Obama addressed the nation’s children as they headed off to school.  While many parents were happy to see the president personally address their children from the television, others refused to allow their children participate in school events where the president was to be broadcasted.

The latter group was portrayed as being insanely protective, almost terrified that “Barama” would get into their youths’ minds and turn them into Godless commies.  But after analyzing Obama’s speech, what we find are not only a series of confusing contradictory statements, but also those supporting an incredibly liberal agenda.  After reading the speech, it is my conclusion that any parent interested in raising their child properly would at least take the time to explain why Barack Obama was flat wrong on several issues.

But first, we must begin by saying that statements aren’t really islands to themselves.  They almost always come in groups, with some statements being necessarily implied by other statements. If a persons says that someone is “good,” they are admitting to a moral standard in which both the speaker and the listener are assumed to believe.  If you say that all men are created equal, you must necessarily be implying that evolution is not the process by which we arrived at our present state, since evolution demands that some portions of the population are always biologically superior and better adapted than the other populations, and that only this evolutionary process would separate us from the animals.  In a logical world, this is the consistent way most statements work.  Acknowledging the truth of a statement thus silently acknowledges other supporting statements as true.

So let us look at several statements made by our President [1] in his speech.

Statement 1: “What you make of our education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.”

After hearing this, the thoughtful reader is forced to ask themselves the following: is national success is built upon social structure or simply technological know-how?  This necessarily implies that there isn’t any sort of moral culture necessary for success, and that adherence to eternal principles has little to do with wealth-building or liberty or security.  But a good education doesn’t keep corporate overlords from fleecing their stockholders, illegitimate childbirth from creating poverty, or gang culture from spreading throughout the nation.  It doesn’t keep terrorists from attacking us, or keep Nazis from conquering Europe, or give us the purpose by which we choose our paths.  Good education and the benefits it brings are the products of good moral structure, not the source.

While this certainly isn’t the most dangerous statement Barack made in his speech, it is a liberal one and should be recognized as such.  Thus a wise old saying remains true: if you educate a thief, all you’ve got is an educated thief.

Statement 2: “You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free.”

This statement appears harmless upon first glance, but begs the following questions: what about America makes us unfair, and how should we change it? Of course, Obama is speaking of changing “systemic racism” and discrimination against gays, but our democratic process allows people to vote for whom they choose.  One vote counts for one person.  Affirmative action is still effective in the work force.  In corporations, the shareholders choose the board of directors.  In the world of lending, denying a minority a loan without excessive reason leaves banks open for prosecution.  In the world of real estate, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the renting and selling of dwelling units.  Since it’s fair to assume he isn’t suggesting that the liberal programs should go, what should? 

Unless he’s talking about either forcing people to pay for gay partner/transsexual benefits, race replacement, or total restructuring of wealth/power groups, his statement about fairness doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, especially since it also directly contradicts Obama’s statement within the speech that “Here in America, you write your own destiny.  You make your own future.”  But it’s been said that if you say two things to appeal to two different groups, you can have people subconsciously pick and choose which ideals they believe you espouse.  But only so long as you don’t make any clear statements about either one, and nobody’s really paying attention.  This is where Obama’s (and liberals in general) success lies: he is unusually adept with silent persuasion, making statements you’d almost feel wrong to disagree with, if you wouldn’t just first consider the logical ramifications of agreement.

And what of freedom?  How are we unfree?  To this writer, it seems that the only freedoms we’ve lost are due to the legislation Obama’s administration overtly supports (see, Affirmative Action), or at one time opposed and now–for some strange reason–cannot seem to give the boot (see, Patriot Act).  We don’t have a stable currency for wealth retention, we have to go to government agencies to tie our shoes, and we have to go into unpayable consumptive debt to pay for someone else’s entitlements.  So when the current administration means “more freedom,” what they really mean is “the right to force other people to accept and live next to your low social standards.”  [2] As far as their track record is concerned, freedom is about sodomy and torture porn and easy divorce instead of things like, oh, having property rights, rights of association, and guns.

Statement 3: “You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS…”

It is this in which Obama’s speech is exceedingly liberal, because America’s children are taught that AIDS is one of the most offensive and important diseases on the planet. But why?  First, it is predominantly contracted through sexual intercourse, which liberals believe should be something to engage in without any physical repercussions (nevermind social/spritual ones).  Second, it is a disease contracted almost entirely by two highly publicized minorities: [3] homosexuals and [4] blacks.  The implications of AIDS’s prominence are that we should devote massive amounts of money so that people can have sex “freely,” and that specific minority groups are more important than the general population. There is simply no other reason that AIDS was mentioned here, other than these.

On that note, AIDS is a painful disease, and it’s simply inhuman to disregard the suffering of AIDS patients and their families (especially to children born with the disease, for whom I wholly support funding). But if you’re interested in ending drunk-driving deaths, would you pay the drunk-drivers for the damage they cause?  Should people be paid when they contract liver disease from drinking?  If the answer to those questions is no, then why do we devote so much money to something almost entirely contracted by adults engaging in risky behavior?  Isn’t this in itself unfair?

Any casual observer could tell that Obama isn’t interested in serving the general population anyway, as even the language of this article implies (basketball and rap music?  Jazmin Perez?  Shantell Steve?).  The truth is that liberals believe some groups should have laws dedicated to their benefit, and others should shoulder the weight.  This is unfortunate enough for half of America to believe, but allowing your child to jump on the bandwagon is not only unAmerican, but it’s plain wrong.  It’s time for parents to address their children and explain why.

In short, Obama’s speech engendered many positive qualities, such as how he claimed that you can’t just expect to get into a good job after dropping out of school, but it had subversive statements contained within the good advice.  And as wise men say, you don’t need a whole lot of poison to kill someone: it’s generally mixed with a lot of tasty food.  So don’t let your kids eat the poison.  Unless you’re willing to sit alongside them and watch our president speak, explaining all the while why he’s wrong, it’s probably best to keep Obama as far away as possible.