Obama, don't you have little poor and inner city kids you could be talking to? Your speech should be on BET and TV One, nowhere else.

*

Is that tire marks I see on Van Jone's back? I know I know, no one in the White House asked him step down, he just didn't want to be a distraction from the president's agenda. Yeah right.

Anyway, I am not writing about that tonight. It's a victory for the wingnuts, and I don't want to think about wingnut victories right now.

What I want to write about is the outrage over his O ness speaking to all those school children all over A-merry-ca. Conservatives are breathing fire over this one. Who the hell does this Obama guy think he is? They are saying. He might have been elected president, but he is not really our president.

"Thinking about my kids in school having to listen to that just really upsets me," suburban Colorado mother Shanneen Barron told CNN Denver affiliate KMGH. "I'm an American. They are Americans, and I don't feel that's OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now."

There are a lot Sharon Barrons all over A-merry-ca. The very thought of his O ness talking to her kids about anything scares the blue right out of her eyes. One Florida GOP Chairman, Jim Greer, basically came right out and said that his O ness is pushing a "Socialist ideology" on A-merry-ca's children.

"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology," Greer said.
"The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans ... is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power."

Hold up. Didn't the fake ass cowboy from California deliver a political speech to school children?

Yes, I think he did. And I think it got far more political than any speech his O ness could ever give. But hey, Reagan isn't a Socialist with an African father and a funny name. He, my friends, was a real A-merry-can.

And then, of course, there was the first Bush, who gave a speech to the kids as well. I tried to remember if there was this type of outrage over any of those speeches, and I am comfortable in saying that there was not. Consider, some wingnuts are actually saying that this talk by his O ness to the kids violates the constitution. They are saying that this president's access to communications is "dangerous". Dangerous? Isn't he the president of the United States of America? How dangerous can he be since we elected him?

But I get it. Barack Hussein Obama is not a legitimate president as far as these people are concerned, because they still cannot stomach the fact that he is their chosen leader and the most powerful person in their beloved country. This is not about his politics, it's about him. Had this been Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or Al Gore, we would not even be having this discussion. You know it and so do the other 300 million plus people in this country. Let's just go ahead and keep it real with each other: This is about the president's race and nothing else. The last thing white folks want (present company excluded of course) is this Negro talking to their children. " He can go talk to his kids or kids who need to be told about getting an education. My kids know the value of an education." That is what one man from the majority population was saying on the news the other night. And believe me, I got his message loud and clear. I am just amazed that folks in the White House do not.

Honestly, a lot of these political mistakes could be avoided by his O ness if he would just surround himself with more people who understand the real A-merry-ca and aren't buying into this "post-racial" crap.

"The President is a political leader. He is not in office to be an educator. His duties are clearly laid out, and they do not include educating children. By the same token, the President is not the parent of all these children. He is not their teacher. He is not their religious leader. The reason for these boundaries is so that political figures do not use their power and influence to dominate our social lives. It is a special danger to liberty and society when national powers are developed. These are powers in which the national leadership directly controls or influences individual citizens, while bypassing or circumventing other local sources of governance and influence such as parents, families, churches, schools, and local governments."

Who says he is not a "religious leader"? I bet that author has never attended the church of Obama?

*Pic courtesy og 3.bp.blog