It’s all about Barack Obama! A man so obsessed with himself — as celebrity, as the center of everything, as “being Barack and not being Barry” — that he is scheduled to deliver a speech tomorrow directed to the nation’s children in schools (“students”); the speech is dominated by: himself.
Note that Associated Press (link, above) refers to this speech tomorrow as Barack Obama’s “talk,” emphasizing the “be cozy with the leader” perspective, emphasizing the “special celebrity advice” personna that Obama used, with mainstream media assistance, to coast into the Office of U.S. Celebrity: it reveals a corrupting lack of formality (and in that, is suggestive, is seductive, in other words, toward an as-yet unrevealed end, or so it’s implied).
Celebrity, not Presidency, that is the presentation method that Barack Obama has been revealed as engaging in many, many times: “dear leader” before charmed subjects while not engaged as public servant with an explanation of tasks to be completed and how. The charmed subjects, then, “believe” they want to please the Dear Leader but they can’t specifically state why other than that there is some wafting seduction at work. Nor does (nor can, in Obama’s case) explain what work he’s engaged in, just that you-the-servant-are-joined-with-him, though there’s never any clear explanation as to where it is you’re being led. Again, seduction.
“Fuhrer” means, by the way, “Leader”; on the other hand, “President” means employee-hired-to-serve (and at a limited length of time, limited in scope), a Presidency, then, as public-servant, not a monarchy to rule, contrary (again) to the Barack Obama Administration as described by similarly dubious Key Adviser, Valerie Jarrett (“ready to rule from day one” so she declared last Fall).
The speech by Barack Obama, to be delivered tomorrow from a public school in Arlington, Virginia, is to be broadcast nationwide to participating schools. This version of the planned speech, released today, was only available for the public to review in printed form after parents and other citizens nationwide complained as to the earlier attempts by the complicit Department of Education to coordinate lesson plans asking school-age children to define how it was they could “serve” Barack Obama in response to this scheduled presentation tomorrow; this speech in this (latest) version, just released, is the latest round of messaging from Barack Obama and is now scrubbed of the earlier-planned (and announced by the Dept. of Ed.) requirement to serve Obama while the corrupting subtextual message remains: in this latest speech, it’s all (continuing to be) about Barack Obama, not the nation, and that easily transitions to, it’s all about the ideology that the Celebrity espouses.
The wording of the speech, at first blush, appears relatively innocuous; yet, on closer examination, the subterranean ploys remain: subtle, sneaky messaging. Children are led into a context that suggests to them to “join up, join with, be a subset of him, the speaker, this entity calling himself ‘Barack Obama, President'” while the formality of the Office held by this (or any) individual — in the context of our nation and our nation’s government — is minimized to a point of near-ignoring: while the nation is suppressed as issue, the individual (“Celebrity”) is the message.
…the president tried to pull a fast one, nearly succeeded, and was caught in the nick of time.
The risk was never really in the speech: it was always in the course material, and in the words that the children’s teachers would say, puppet-like, to accompany the president’s speech.
Anybody with half a wit could see that. And now that the president’s scheme has been well-and-truly sprung, his minions have retreated to a fall-back position that says, in essence ‘see, we told ya there was nothing to worry about…’
Nothing to worry about my fat lazy arse!
We have seen a sneak preview of what this president is up to. There’s more than plenty to worry about.
The speech remains an indoctrination text for and about an individual, the speaker, this persona children are then asked to heed. The absence of formality with children as public individuals by an adult individual using the Presidency to promote himself to those public (and vulnerable, impressionable) children is indecent.
Emphasis 1 — on the presence and person of “Barack Obama,” the speaker with the message;
Emphasis 2 — on the influence of his points of view (follow his advice, it leads to him);
Emphasis 3 — associate with the “others” Barack Obama describes in the message, they’re little children mentioned by him (so you are one, too, as also. then, part of his story);
Emphasis 4 — service is with (and defined by) the speaker;
Emphasis 5 — solutions identified by the speaker and message are Leftwing causes (note the mention of “curing cancer and AIDS” while there’s no mention of curing diabetes, Alzheimers, arthritis or Multiple Sclerosis, or any number of other chronic, degenerative diseases that continue to pose demonstrative threats to humanity, civilizations and ours and other nations’ economies — the point here is that “cancer and AIDS” are singled-out as desired goals to “cure” and particularly emphasized, as is also the mention of “the environment” in combination with “cancer and AIDS”); and,
Emphasis 6 — there’s this discarded, de-emphasized thing rarely mentioned, called “the nation,” which is minimized, deemed of little importance.
Hot Air presents a break-down analysis of the speech contents by word-type with counts, respectively, by type, that supports the Emphasis List I just presented, above.
Update II: I’ve run the speech through a word frequency counter and found the following results:
* 56 iterations of “I”
* 19 iterations of “school”
* 10 iterations of “education”
* 8 iterations of “responsibility”
* 7 iterations of “country”
* 5 iterations each of “parents”, “teachers”
* 3 iterations of “nation”
In other words, Barack Obama referenced himself more than school, education, responsibility, country/nation, parents, and teachers combined…
And, also from Hot Air, comments section this time, reader “faraway” (on September 7, 2009 at 1:05 PM) makes a keen observation, as follows:
(Obama is to read/perform this)
“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.”
(faraway says this is…)
(…and faraway is right about that)
Note that “social justice” is the Marx rallying cry: it may sound all hippy-dippy-mom-and-pie-ish but what it means is some people want to change the U.S. government (and our nation accordingly) to take away the property of some citizens to then “redirect” it to he/she/it who those doing the redirecting think “should” have it (more than he or she whose property it is).
“Social justice” works elegantly as a description of freely-self-guiding individuals acting in a civilized manner in applying their individual property to those who they want to bestow with gifts or otherwise, aid and assist for personal reasons. That’s what our Republic is written into existence to “allow” or at least to prevent government from taking away from all free men (citizens).
But in the mouths and minds of Marxists (Communist/Socialists), “social justice” is them using our Republic to replace it with theirs: a communist process by which personal property is forcibly removed from he/she who owns it and then redirected toward he/she/it who the Marxists/Communists/Socialists think “should” have it, be it an individual’s home, land, child (redistributed to teachers unions to be indoctrinated, parental involvement grossly reduced if not undermined, etc., to produce another Marxist), your income, your property.
And it is what Obama-and-associated are about: they want personal property with or without any citizen’s permission, but by force of government demand. Individuals exist in such a plan to serve the ruler, in other words, and the issue of private property and individual rights (what our Constitution sets into being) are then swept away into the past to become memories, antiquities, part of that “old, White man” stuff (apparently that includes our Constitution since the Constitutional declarations are today being greatly urged into ineffectiveness or overwriting by the Left — so goes away our Constitution, and so will go our nation as it has existed from birth to pre-Obama).
Michelle Malkin has been consistently right about this issue:
“I repeat: It’s not the speech, it’s the subtext; Update: Don’t let me, me, me down”
An ongoing lie by Barack Obama that he has repeated numerous times before the public — and which he has included in the text of tomorrow’s performance — is that, so he claims and repeats, he “was raised by a single mother” and which he uses to then lead others into a misty-sympathy-following along his less-than-honorable path to self.
He was born to a woman who had already married a man (not a single mother at that point); he remained with that mother and her husband (not a single mother then); he was taken to Indonesia by his mother where she married another man there (not a single mother then, either); he lived in Indonesia, adopted by that man his mother married there (no single mother there, either); he was later relocated back to Hawaii where he was left with his two grandparents and where he remained until a college-age young adult (two grandparents raised him there and then, no mother, single or otherwise, present).
Thus, this line that Obama continues to use for purposes of a tear-reaction and some sort of subterfuge misery index (“I was raised by a single mother, so I…[fill-in the blank of what issue he can then use to leverage among an audience]”) is a lie.
There appears to have been one brief period of time that his mother qualified as single, legally, and that is after the divorce from the first man and before the marriage to the second man (though it’s also argued she was never legally married to the first, so the marriage to the man in Indonesia is legally supposed to be her first marriage), anyway, there was a short period of time in his younger years before the move to Indonesia when the “first” man moved back to Africa and the mother, with child, Barack, remained in Hawaii — but with the two grandparents nearby — so this is not at all substantiation of Barack Obama as having “been raised by a single mother.”
Question remains: why does Barack Obama use this lie (among many others) and for what political purposes? Is the man continually suffering abandonment or is he intentionally reinforcing his own mythology to the public? Is he unable to read his own factual dates of residencies and with whom, where or does he intend to confuse nearly anyone about what those facts are? Is anything he says reliable?
Any parent, particularly, who has such questions should never persist in exposing any child to such an influence. If there’s a question there as to reliability, there’s little to be had responsibly by persisting to expose any child to such an influence or influences.
I see I’m not the only person who notices this ongoing mythology by Barack Obama…
EARLIER/RELATED (this site):