Democrats Turned 1991 George H.W. Bush Speech To Schoolchildren Into Spanish Inquisition

I got attacked by the Village Voice today for expressing my rather nasty response to the ObamaDay speech to schoolchildren and the accompanying ideological White House-dictated Department of Education lesson plans for kids (e.g., “Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals“).

I don’t particularly mind being attacked by the Village Voice.  I mean, at least they spelled my name right, as they say.

If anything, what bothers me is the smarmy, “They’re unhinged and we’re not”) tone of the article.

When Democrats act as if they aren’t the ones who are unhinged, just recognize that Democrats have a terrible addiction to “being unhinged,” and that a big part of any addiction is denial.

First, yes, Reagan and Bush 1 gave speeches to students.  But unless you can show that their speeches were accompanied by having children engage in scripted White House campaigns to create posters and write themselves letters asking,“What can I do to help the president?” it is anything but the same thing.  Rather, Presidents Reagan and Bush managed to give speeches to kids about school without lowering themselves into self-serving propaganda, as the Obama administration clearly tried to do.

[Update: it has since been brought to my attention that Reagan’s and Bush’s speeches did in fact contain certain political statements.  Barack Obama’s own speech has a fair amount of political ideology expressed in the form of rather transparent innuendo.]

Discussion questions that the White House provided to the Department of Education to pass on to public teachers included the following: “What is President Obama asking me to do?”, “What is President Obama challenging me to do today?” “What did President Obama attempt to inspire me to do?”, “What are the three most important words in today’s speech?”  How does that NOT sound like propaganda?

Second, I would point out that my article – “unhinged” as it might be – nonetheless documented repeated instances of liberals using children for political purposes including this shocking video that simply don’t have any parallels with Reagan or Bush unless you can document otherwise.

Third, I document a teacher in a public school browbeating a child to support Barack Obama and renounce his support for John McCain.  Please watch it before you ridicule the prospect over worrying about the Obama-dictated Dept of Education agenda.

I made the point in my article, “If Obama just wanted to do a brief public service announcement and call upon kids to stay in school and study harder, nobody would have a problem with it.”   And that’s exactly correct.   The problem is that a LOT more was clearly going on.   Even the Obama White House was forced to admit that there was something wrong with the appearance of the proposal they crafted for the Dept of Education to provide to teachers.

When I can document government teachers trying to brainwash public school children, I think I have a right to wonder about what teachers who will be all alone with children will do in the hour following the Obama speech.

As I say in my article, “The Obama speech to the children will very likely sound innocent and innocuous. But in the liberal public schools – which are and have been laboratories for leftist activism, it won’t be innocent or innocuous at all. Unionized Government Teachers will be free to spin their own agendas onto Obama’s speech.”

If you think that is so impossible, Please watch the video I cite above to see otherwise.

Now, having brought out those little factoids, it turns out that there is more to say: namely, when George H.W. Bush gave his speech in 1991, Democrats turned their ideological reaction to it into the Spanish Inquisition, Part Deux.

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT

The controversy over President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginningDemocrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech — they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance.  The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit.  “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.'”

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush’s appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. “The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC,” Ford began. “As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event.”

Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. “The speech itself and the use of the department’s funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal,” the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. “The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda.”

That didn’t stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it “cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers’ money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. — while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters.”

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush’s speech itself, like Obama’s today, was entirely unremarkable. “Block out the kids who think it’s not cool to be smart,” the president told students. “If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they’re stuck in a dead end job. Don’t let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

So thanks for reminding us of when George Herbert Walker gave a speech to schoolchildren, Democrats.  It’s a reminder of what loathsome hypocrites you truly are.

Bush 1 gave an innocuous speech to schoolchildren that was utterly bereft of the Obama-style propaganda utilizing the Department of Education to coerce teachers into brainwashing the little darlings under their charge immediately after the speech.  Yet the Democrats came completely unglued anyway.

And yet, how the liberals roll their eyes when Republicans offer up what amounts to a FAR tamer response.

Gephardt’s replacement for Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is hardly out there demanding an answer to the question, “Who’s Paying For Obama’s Education Speech?”  And given that Obama’s speech is far more grandiose, and going out to far more schools than Bush’s ever did, you can bet that TAXPAYERS will be forking out a whole lot more than Bush’s $26,000.  Not that these Democrats will care.

So when you reflect on how the mainstream media reported on how unhinged conservatives are over a “similar” event to what George Bush 1 did, just realize that – like the propagandists they are – they aren’t giving you any of the context that lets you know the truth.

Not only did Democrats react to the Republican President’s speech, but they reacted far more savagely.

It helps to know the truth.

It also helps to know that you will rarely ever get the truth from the mainstream media.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

22 Responses to “Democrats Turned 1991 George H.W. Bush Speech To Schoolchildren Into Spanish Inquisition”

  1. MB Says:

    “Rather, Presidents Reagan and Bush managed to give speeches to kids about school without lowering themselves into self-serving propaganda, as the Obama administration clearly tried to do.”

    You sir, are clueless. One small example from the last paragraph from the education speech Reagan gave in 1986:

    “We’ve been trying very hard in Washington to make America even more economically fit by really overhauling our entire tax structure. When we came into office, the top personal tax rate that the Federal Government could put on your income was 70 percent. Now, you can understand, I think, that if you were getting up in those brackets — there were 14 different tax brackets, depending on the amount of money in each bracket you earned. And when you could look and say, “If I earn another dollar, I only get to keep 30 cents out of it,” you can imagine the lack of incentive there. Well, we lowered it to 50 percent, and the economy really took off. Now we’re trying to lower it yet again so that families can keep more of their money and so the national economy will be lean and trim and fit for the future.”

    But don’t take my word for it:

    And don’t post YouTube videos of wackos and say “See what Dems are doing to our children?” When repubs don’t have anything to complain about, they make up something and tell everyone to “Be Afraid!!” “I got nothing! Quick, tell everyone that Obama is going to brainwash our kids, and kill our grandma’s!”

  2. Paul Says:

    Just like the Armageddon that would befall us in the year 2000, the speech that was suppose to indoctrinate our youth. Now who was spreading the baseless lies…..hmm…..oh ya, “Fake News”. Is anyone real surprised? Too funny.

  3. Jan Says:

    In response to your question or challenge : But unless you can show that their speeches were accompanied by having children engage in scripted White House campaigns to create posters and write themselves letters asking,“What can I do to help the president?” it is anything but the same thing.

    In the speech Bush says “Write me a letter — and I’m serious about this one — write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.”

    The text of G.H.W. Bush’s speech can be found at his library’s website:

    And as a teacher, I can tell you, the wording of those questions about the Obama speech are standard questions that students would likely be asked at the end of any speech or essay that was intended to be inspirational, whether delivered by the president, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or a 15 year old cancer survivor.

  4. Jan Says:

    Oh, and also, Bush mentioned specific White House sponsored legislation, America 2000, and Obama did not reference any specific legislation or programs.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    I figured that I’d just deal with Jan and MB in one comment.

    You’ve got me pinned down on the fact that Bush’s and Reagan’s speeches did in fact contain some political elements. I didn’t read the speeches, and frankly don’t intend to (they’re being basically irrelevant ancient history now). I shouldn’t have made the comment suggesting that they were “politic-free” when I didn’t know it to be the case.

    That said, neither of you deal with the fact that the Democrats rose up in anger when Republican presidents did the same thing Obama is doing. Bush, in particular, paid dearly for his speech. And Barack Obama won’t suffer anything even close for doing the same thing himself. If Ronnie and Georgie provided politics in their speeches, rather than having their White Houses tell the Department of Education to get the teachers to do it for them like Obama did, well, what can I say? If you think that the latter is better than the former, I’m not with you.

    Having said that, Obama’s speech actually has a fair amount of political activism in it; in the form of rather transparent innuendo.

    Now, I have shown in my own articles that Obama’s speech was likewise surrounded by political aspects and clear elements of indoctrination. So all that you prove – other than that I should have read the Reagan and Bush speeches – is that we should stand up in outrage and scream every single time a president or a White House tries to influence children as part of public school – this president included.

    I’ll further stipulate that the fact that Democrats DID ferociously go after Bush means that it’s rather hypocritical for anyone who sides with Democrats to feign outrage now. Conservatives are doing the best they can to follow in the example set by liberals.

    You blazed the trail for us. Don’t you dare start a fire to advance your agenda and then demand we put it out to keep us from advancing ours. Democrats unrelentingly went after Bush and everything Bush stood for for eight years; and now you think conservatives should play nice?

    And, Jan, I have been a teacher myself – at the elementary school and subsequently at the college level. And the one thing I can assure you of is the fact that I NEVER introduced such politicians’ speeches as either Reagan’s, or Bush’s, or Obama’s in any of my classrooms (with long-out-of-office politician’s speeches such as from Winston Churchill aside) – and I frankly find it rather frightening that you have so little problem doing such.

    I also find it remarkable that you would cite Bush asking students to voluntarily write him a letter, clearly implying that it is something bad, while having no problem yourself in assigning students to write similar letters that you would collect on behalf of Barack Obama “to hold them accountable to their goals.” Your liberal political ideology is transparently obvious. I would submit to you that it is FAR worse and FAR more propagandistic for a teacher to assign the writing of a letter to a president to a class than it is for a president speaking on television to ask students to voluntarily write him a letter.

    I taught in public schools in the early Clinton years. I was a Republican and had conservative values, but I wasn’t involved in politics, would not have been involved in political blogging, and truly did not have a political axe to grind (I used to believe that politics were one’s personal business back then). I left the public schools because way too many of my fellow teachers DID have such axes to grind – almost exclusively from the far left. I can’t even tell you how many times I found myself trapped in the teachers’ lounge having someone trying to cram something the Clinton’s were doing down my throat while I was trying to eat my lunch – and becoming livid when I expressed a different opinion.

    As a child going through the school system, I never had a president try to beam his message into my little brain. Nor did I have 15 year old cancer survivors give me inspirational speeches. Jeez, my school actually taught me how to read, write, do math, and learn history instead.

  6. hl Says:

    Got a chuckle out of that last line Michael!

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    If you’re referring to my last line in my comment to Jan and MB, I just have to point out that actually being taught the 3 Rs has become a sufficiently rare phenomena in the public school system that I felt it merited mention.

  8. Jeff Says:

    The Washington Post article appeared on October 3, 1991 and it started on page A14. Get it right. It wasn’t a front-page article and it didn’t appear the day after Bush I’s speech.

    The big difference between then and now is that then, the Democrats complained that the speech was free political advertising (name me any activity by a politician that isn’t political advertising). Now, the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party is tossing out Molotov cocktails alleging thought control, communism and other absurdities. If you’ll address the difference in the reactions, progressives will be more likely to listen to you. I was a young boy when Joe McCarthy was ruining people’s lives – I have no desire to live through that era again.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    Um, Jeff,
    Maybe you could try to get a grip on yourself.

    I never claimed WHAT page the Washington Post article appeared on. Furthermore, what page it appeared on may be the most important thing in the history of the entire planet to you, but it is irrelevant to me.

    The point is, Democrats TOOK that article on page A14 (or whatever the hell page it was) and used it as the basis for what they turned into a witch hunt.

    And you are factually wrong: the Democrats did FAR more than “complain.” They launched a series of investigations. They literally tried to criminalize Bush for his speech.

    I actually haven’t heard a whole lot about this speech from the “Republican Party.” For the record, I in absolutely no way represent the Republican Party. They do not contact me, nor do I contact them (other than for the odd email request for money). I do not receive “talking points” from them.

    Here’s an example of what I found from an actual Republican Party official:

    “Republican strategist Rich Galen said he didn’t have a problem with Obama reaching out to schoolchildren because “he is everybody’s president. But you have to be very careful that it is not seen as literally propaganda. The original idea to have them write letters about how to help the president crossed the line and the White House realized that.””

    Oohhh. How awful!!! You’d never hear a Democrat giving an insane attack like THAT!

    Here’s Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty:

    “At a minimum it’s disruptive, number two, it’s uninvited and number three, if people would like to hear his message they can, on a voluntary basis, go to YouTube or some other source and get it,” he told reporters at the Minnesota state fair, according to CNN. “I don’t think he needs to force it upon the nation’s school children.”

    OMG!!! If your read between the lines, you can actually HEAR Pawlenty calling for Obama to be BURNED ALIVE!!!

    For what it’s worth, I won’t hold my breath that progressives will EVER listen to ANYTHING conservative. I would presume that Hollywood vampires would sooner drink holy water and eat garlic than a progressive listen to a conservative idea.

    I found an interesting article on how intimately involved Democrats were in creating the monster that ultimately came to be epitomized in the person of Joseph McCarthy.

    By the way, as bad as Joseph McCarthy was, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to what your fellow progressives like Woodrow Wilson did. You should read up on history before you try to hold Republicans accountable for what happened 50 years ago. You’d find the worst kind of blatant racism and ugly discrimination, you’d find blatant fascism, you’d find the worst forms of thought control and police-state tactics. Woodrow Wilson created the Committee on Public Information which was true propaganda and speech restriction. Woodrow Wilson created the War Industries Board which literally forced – in true fascist fashion – industries to cooperate with his war agenda. Woodrow Wilson created the Sedition Act that criminalized any kind of free speech that disagreed with the war agenda. Woodrow Wilson created the Espionage Act that turned criticism of government even in one’s own home into a crime. Woodrow Wilson created the American Protective League that was as bad as the KGB ever was at domestic surveillance.

    Nothing that happened under the mad mad reign of McCarthy even remotely begins to compare with what Wilson and his progressives foisted on America.

    Did you know that the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats to attack white Republicans and the blacks who would vote Republican?

    I seriously doubt that you want to get into an “ancient history” argument with me. Because I – as a proud member of the Party of Lincoln – have a literal trillion ton can of whoopass to unleash on Democrats and progressives.

  10. Janet Says:

    I’m not surprised that politicians , of either side would politicise these speeches, as that’s what politicians do. what is scary is the reaction of the parents to President Obama’s speech, especially before they’d even heard the speech. The conservative base of people have become ‘sheeple’ ready to do the bidding of Republican party, and right-wing pundit blow hards, without attempting to think on their own. It was the public’s reaction to right wing scare tactics over the President’s speech that was so out of line.

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m one of the very people you’re talking about, I’m sure.

    First of all, I presented the FACT that Democrats went after Bush’s speech FAR more than Republicans went after Obama’s. You can argue that Democrats had more power at the time than Repubs do now, but Democrats literally tried to CRIMINALIZE the Bush speech to kids. Maybe you can’t appreciate the difference between being called some names and finding yourself the defendant, but I sure can. I’m struck by the incredible selective outrage and double standard in your anger now.

    You seem to have crawled into a cave and hibernated throughout the entire 8 years of ‘Bush derangement syndrome.’ And now you’re just all bewildered. Since you were obviously in suspended animation for so long, let me give you this as a quick refresher course for the last eight years.

    It also wasn’t ever so much about Obama’s speech, although there’s a BIG chance that speech got changed a LOT following the uproar it received. It was about the White House dictating a “teaching” agenda to the Department of Education, and what was being done with that agenda. Union government teachers getting to assign students to write a letter describing how they’re going to to help the president.

    There is a substantial documented record of teachers indoctrinating students. And the vast majority of that indoctrination is leftwing politics.

    Here’s a note found at a middle school in Raleigh, North Carolina. Where did that kid get that hate for Bush? Who taught him?

    Pardon me – and pardon conservatives in general – for not placing our blind faith in a president’s speech, followed by a block of classroom discussion time, from not being tainted with a shred of indoctrination. But when I can play you video of a teacher browbeating a young child into supporting Obama and not supporting McCain, when I can play you a ideological video that went to public school classrooms with celebrity opinion leaders saying “I pledge….” as a result of being inspired by Obama’s vision, when I can show you crap like THIS, I’ve got a FAR better case for worrying about propaganda than you do about stating it won’t happen. This president and his supporters have REPEATEDLY targeted the young.

    I would submit to you that maybe the conservative parents who didn’t want their kids in that classroom environment aren’t such sheeple after all.

    The other thing is your statement about parents getting upset about their kids hearing Obama’s spiel BEFORE they even knew what it was. I would argue that good parents tend to worry about what their children are going to be exposed to; they don’t just throw their children into dens of wolves and then exclaim, “They shouldn’t be in there!” after the fact. Personally, I would pull my child out of school if I thought a teacher even MIGHT try to indoctrinate him.

    We’ve probably come to a point where it would be much better if presidents stayed the hell out of classrooms, or posted their messages online so parents could decide whether or not to watch it with their kids. And by that I mean Democrat and Republican presidents alike.

  12. Jeff Says:


    My apologies – you didn’t say that the article appeared on page 1, but
    Byron York, whom you quoted, did:

    “The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit. “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.”

    Quoting Byron York, who is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, owned by the Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Philip Anschutz, doesn’t exactly inspire confidence among progressives in your choice of sources.

    Not very many progressives think the “mainstream media” is “liberal”, contrary to what you think. We actually think that it reflects the conservative bias of Corporate America. The New York Times, that so-called bastion of liberalism, is by no means liberal. Perhaps you should educate yourself as to what liberalism is before you go throwing brickbats.

    Regarding Tim Pawlenty:

    Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan blasted Pawlenty for what he called kowtowing to the far right.

    “One would think that encouragement and inspiration directly from the President of the United States to the next generation of Americans, an experience school children will not forget for the rest of their lives, would be something everyone would embrace. Outrageously, Governor Tim Pawlenty, who, as a leader in his state, should be encouraging the success of our children, would rather pander to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party by dismissing and joking about next week’s speech,” Sevugan said in a statement. “The only joke here is Tim Pawlenty, who is clearly trying to out-Palin Sarah Palin in his sickening attempt to please the radical right-wing Glenn Becks of the world.”

    I have no idea what a note found at a Raleigh, NC school has to do with Obama’s speech – he probably was reflecting the political biases of his parents, which almost all kids do, since they don’t yet have minds of their own. I think you assign far too much weight to the influence of teachers – have you ever taught or been a close friend of a teacher?

    I’m totally fascinated that you would give me a link to a Trotskyite organization blasting “liberals” for aiding McCarthy. Wow!! What do you expect a Trotskyite to do – praise liberals? I’m not sure that you have a very sound education in political science – I really don’t.

    Here is the last sentence in that article: “Liberalism is no bulwark of our liberties. Nothing can save America from the iron heel but a class party of the working people in mortal combat against the fascist party of capitalism.” This is standard yak for Trotskyites – for you to use such an article to bolster your complaint about “liberals” is just amazing. You see, most progressives have no use for what you call “liberals”, either. Just because you identify someone as a Democrat or a “liberal” doesn’t mean, in fact, that they are liberal. Study the short or long FAQ in the link to Liberalism Resurgent that I’ve provided. Then get back to me.

    I never said Woodrow Wilson was a liberal or a progressive. He wasn’t – he was a tool of Corporate America, just like all of your right-wing heros. As far as the Democrats being involved in the formation of the KKK: I read the entire Wikipedia article that you referenced and I don’t see anything that defines what a “Democrat” was in those days. For you to toss the word “Democrat” around without defining it doesn’t reflect well on you. Your action now is no better than those who toss around the words “socialist”, “communist”, or “fascist”
    without defining them. Anyone can engage in name-calling; it takes a different class of person to engage in thoughtful dialogue. It would be nice if you could demonstrate that you belong to the latter class instead of the former, but the tone of your messages indicate otherwise.

    You aren’t doing your cause any good by claiming that you are the party of Lincoln and bashing “liberals”. You are just feeding the Beck-inspired frenzy and not contributing anything positive to the debate. By repeating the tired old crap being spouted by Fox News and World Net Daily, you are just furthering Corporate America’s agenda and I don’t think that agenda is your agenda.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    As I review your reply, what I cannot help but notice is an almost passionate embrace of the genetic fallacy as your foundation: if you don’t like the source, you simply dismiss completely out of hand the facts/arguments provided. You proceed to do that a good five times.

    You demand that I define terms like “Democrat,” “progressive,” “communist,” etc., when it is rather appallingly apparent that were I to do such a thing, you would simply dismiss my definitions if they didn’t come from one of your pre-approved sources. which basically means the only way I could participate in a real argument with you would be to use only your sources, which would essentially be to concede the argument. I think I’ll pass on that “circular reasoning” hamster wheel of yours.

    Let’s see. If you don’t like the historical fact that the Ku Klux Klan emerged as a political weapon by Democrats against Republicans black AND white because “Democrat” isn’t suitably defined for you, then I welcome you to consider an era a full sixty years later: the 1924 Democrat convention, called the “Klanbake” due the massive attendance/participation/influence of the Ku Klux Klan.

    You tell me, “I never said Woodrow Wilson was a liberal or a progressive. He wasn’t,” mistakenly believing that such a determination is up to you when it’s simply a matter of historical fact.

    The Wikipidia entry on Woodrow Wilson begins accordingly:

    Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Ph.D. (December 28, 1856–February 3, 1924)[1] was the 28th President of the United States. A leading intellectual of the Progressive Era,

    and when you go to the link on “Progressive Era,” you find Woodrow Wilson on the alphabetized listing of “Notable Progressives.”

    Here’s a book for you to improve your knowledge: “Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910-1917.”

    Sorry, Jeff, he’s all yours.

    You tell me that the New York Times isn’t liberal, and I can only imagine that you actually have a straight face while you do it. As “proof,” you link me to a website that I could spend days perusing. I DID click on it, and I DID go to the short FAQs section; I was disappointed not to find the section/article, “Why New York Times actually not tainted with liberalism,” as I would have enjoyed looking through the world at that kaleidoscope tremendously.

    You tell me the media isn’t biased to the left – and again I can only imagine a straight-faced figure who is actually trying to be serious. A UCLA study concludes, “almost all major media outlets tilt to the left,” noting that “Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center.” But you’re probably find that a public university located in liberal California in ultra-liberal Los Angeles is somehow a conservative entity loaded with rightwing bias.

    Here are some more media tidbits:
    The media has been so blatantly biased throughout its election coverage that it is completely accurate to say that we are now in a propaganda state. There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their more recent study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased. Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain. The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats and their ideology. Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded democracy, because no free society can survive such a climate of propaganda.

    From Media Research:

    89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.———–
    Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

    But you just keep on smoking the crack pipe and watching the news so you can find the “conservative bias.”

    As to your last paragraph, I’m sorry, but I think I’ll take my advice on “how to do my cause any good” elsewhere.

    Btw, Jeff, I actually DID teach in public schools, and later taught in a university. I encountered a great deal of leftwing bias in both, but it was suffocating in the public schools.

    Here’s a brief smattering of quotations from some prominent university professors. Perhaps you can tell me if you see any bias, or if parents might be justified in their concerns:

    Richard Dawkins says, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe in manifest falsehoods? Isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about” even as he demands the right to do just that with his atheistic evolution.

    Richard Rorty argued that secular teachers ought to “arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.” And he claimed that students are fortunate to find themselves “under the benevolent Herrshaft of people like me and to have escaped the frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.” He blatantly and arrogantly warned the parents who were literally paying to send their children to him, “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you before the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.”

    Steven Weinberg wrote that “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization”?

    Christopher Hitchens wrote that “All religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place”? He wrote that, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith? He charged that “religion has always hoped to practice upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young.”

    Richard Dawkins wrote, “The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism”?

    Scott Atran said, “Religious belief requires taking what is materially false to be true and what is materially true to be false” in a warped commitment to “factually impossible worlds.”

    Richard Dawkins: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

    Richard Lewontin says of education: “the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural forces of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, science, as the only begetter of truth.”

    Carolyn Porco says, “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome – and even comforting – than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

    And let me leave you with the PROGRESSIVE Woodrow Wilson:

    Woodrow Wilson – as president of Princeton – said, “Our problem is not merely to help the students to adjust themselves to world life… but to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.”

  14. hl Says:

    You can tell who the Left fears by who they attack. Michael, you are a true Patriot who is doing powerful stellar work in documenting the TRUTH about what is going on. Keep up the GREAT work, it is reaching, informing and equipping many.
    The ‘Jeff’s’ of this country are either unwilling or unable to face Reality so they revise it to suit their idiotic, utopian ideology. I have found they want to discuss detailed muntia while being BLIND to the MAIN THING.
    Then they lecture about reasonable debate. How do you debate unreality???
    May the Lord have mercy upon them and grant them repentance. They are to be pitied.

  15. Jeff Says:


    My! Such colorful adjectives! “Passionate embrace”, “demand”, “appallingly apparent”, … What are you smoking? I can’t dismiss your definitions because you do not provide any. Be a man and step up to the plate and define your terms. Then, if I don’t agree, you can use your colorful adjectives. But first, define your terms.

    The names “Democrat” and “Republican” have meant different things over the years. Your insistence that there is a black and white world out there says volumes about you. In logic, there is a definition of the use of the present meaning of a term to define the past, but it escapes me. I see the world in shades of gray – you don’t. Your attempt to “prove” that the Democrats created the KKK as a weapon to use against Republicans is pathetic and is the kind of “logic” that Glenn Beck uses every day. And you accuse me of “circular reasoning”? Wow! What university did you teach in – Liberty University?

    It is nice that you think that Wikipedia is the authority for defining Progressivism – I don’t share your opinion at all.

    I do, indeed, claim that the New York Times is not liberal with a completely, dead-serious, straight face. It is a tool of Corporate America to subjugate the populace of this country. The link I provided has nothing whatsoever to do with the New York Times – it has to do with the definition of liberalism, which, if you would take the time to read, has a whole lot of similarities to the philosophy of Edmund Burke, one of the bastions of conservatism. But you choose not to read or think for yourself – you only follow the rabid dogs of the right, who are also tools of Corporate America. Wake up, dude!

    It really is pointless to try to discuss anything with you, Michael. As Barney Frank said to the woman holding the poster of Obama with a Hitlerian mustache: ““Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table, I have no interest in doing it.”

    Just keep drinking the Kool Ade, dude. Don’t ever question anything and don’t ever listen to a dissenting voice. Truth is a very scary thing, isn’t it?

    I’ll leave you with one “link to read, though I doubt that you will do so. Maybe, just maybe, IF you read it, you MIGHT be able to see where I’m coming from. But I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ll listen to you you wax eloquent on logic when you start using a little, Jeff. You CONTINUE to embrace the genetic fallacy, and “passionate” seems to be a better word for it than ever. And you continue to dismiss whatever you don’t like out of hand. You trivialize Wikipedia’s MULTIPLE description of Woodrow Wilson as a progressive – not because you even bother to try to produce an argument or a source that demonstrates that Woodrow Wilson is NOT a progressive – but merely because you don’t want to face the description that Wikipedia provides.

    Mind you, I didn’t just provide you with two Wikipedia references, I provided you with a book. That book bears the title, “Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910-1917.” You forgot to throw it out simply because you didn’t like it’s conclusion. You’re slipping.

    Here’s not only pointing out that Wilson was a progressive, but a shameful racist as well. But I know in advance that that source won’t be valid for you, because you love to violate one of the fundamental tenets of philosophy and dismiss something merely because you don’t like it and choose to demonize the source instead of grapple with the claim.

    Here’s Jonah Goldberg noting that Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive
    , writing under the banner of the Christian Science Monitor. Goldberg also has seven pages of footnotes on Woodrow Wilson in his book Liberal Fascism.

    Here’s an article from the Magazine Modern US History that says of Wilson, “Wilson was truly a Progressive Democrat.”

    Here’s a link in a scholarly academic journal (Political Science Quarterly) that directly links Woodrow Wilson with progressivism.

    Hey, how about this source? describes Woodrow Wilson as a Progressive.

    Oh, THIS one ought to matter: here is Woodrow Wilson HIMSELF referring to himself as a Progressive in a speech. He begins by saying:

    “I take my stand absolutely, where every progressive ought to take his stand.”

    So let’s be crystal clear here, Jeff. I’ve got an avalanche of documentation that Wilson was a progressive – including straight from the horse’s mouth – and you’ve got your ignorant, pathetic, and frankly asinine dismissals of the truth.

    You also haven’t bothered to do two things: 1) explain why I should even bother to “define my terms” when I know for a fact that you are merely going to dismiss them out of hand based on your application of the genetic fallacy; 2) why haven’t YOU “defined your terms”? YOU’RE the one that claims it is so necessary!!! Why don’t YOU define your terms so that I can toss them aside like so much garbage simply because I trivialize your source/s? Just why the hell is it that you think I should play your stupid game when even YOU won’t play your stupid game?

    Your dismissal of history – and your complete ignorance of it – is contemptible. And you are an appalling hypocrite. If anyone wants to go back and review, this discussion about history began because Jeff threw Joseph McCarthy in my face and claimed that he had tainted the Republican Party. And when I start throwing all the nasty vile crap from the Democrats past – and damn there is a lot of crap – suddenly the Democrat Party is a completely different party and doesn’t have to answer for it’s past crimes. What a giant boatload of manure you push!

    So you’re the worst kind of waste to have a discussion with, Jeff. You tell me I have to define my terms, when you yourself don’t bother to. You tell me that the history of the Democrat Party is irrelevant, when you tried to hold me to ONE freaking Republican who died nearly ten years before I was even born. You just move your goal post around at will, don’t you?

    And, my God!!! You tell me – again, with a straight face – that the New York Times isn’t “liberal” because of some mysterious definition that you won’t even tell me (other than that it’s somewhere on some big web site like some kind of bogus Easter egg hunt). You don’t even bother to define your defining term while all the while demanding that I waste my time defining everything else.

    For the damn record, you cite the woman carrying the “Obama as Hitler” poster. What you don’t mention is that she was a representative of the Lyndon Larouche movement. And Larouche – who also demonized Bush as Hitler (and you didn’t mind then, did you?) has run for president as a DEMOCRAT seven times.

    I hate to tell you, Jeff, but truly I don’t CARE where you’re coming from. Wherever it is, please go back.

    I’m glad that you think it’s pointless to argue with me, given that I find you an utter waste of my time.

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    You can read my comment to Jeff that follows your own comment and see how prophetically insightful you were in seeing through Jeff. I demonstrated that he moved his goal post around at will to suit his own warped views; you point out that the guy is unable to face up to reality and so has to revise “reality” to suit his ideology.

    And not only did the guy want me to focus on the endless minutiae of the definitions game, but he himself didn’t have the balls to play by the rules of his own stupid games.

    I’ll likely just block him if he comes back to waste my time anymore. I see no reason to bother with someone who doesn’t have the personal character to play by the rules of his own games. A guy who hasn’t provided me with his own definitions repeatedly demands that I do so, after demonstrating that he wouldn’t bother to even consider any definition I would provide anyway. And a guy who starts off trying to hang the albatross of Joe McCarthy around my neck suddenly decides that the Democrats of yesteryear are completely different than they are today – thus their past history is irrelevant. Even as he tries to hold Republicans responsible of events that one guy perpetuated sixty years ago. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    Before any more of you leftists comment you should watch this.

    That’s government union teachers pushing indoctrination on innocent little children to celebrate “black history month.”

    It is naked propaganda.

    We were right. You were wrong.

  19. UntamedWish Says:

    You made a lot of sound bytes without really getting down to business. Here are a couple pooints I was hoping you would clarify that I am afraid Jeff seems to have won you on.

    First, you danced a lot but you never really pinned down your terms. Jeff’s right, Democrat, Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, and many others shift their meaning based on context in both historical time and general usage. When you discuss the party of Lincoln, you are talking about a point in time when Democrats and Republicans were nearly their mirror opposites for what they mean today. Historically the extremes have shifted over time meaning just because Wilson was a Progressive of the Progressive Era, please note that the particular period to which that definition applies was a very short lived and specific time. Progressive in relation to that time is VERY different, in fact close to polar opposite of what it means in today’s world.

    Also, in all the debate about the Presidential addresses to school children, you failed to thoroughly check your facts. Rush has also dropped the ball in this area and been called to task for it. That being the case, it does not help the conservative values you both embrace.

    Thirdly, as I read the links and articles it becomes clear that the pivotal differences between Obama’s address and GHW Bush’s has more to do with choreographed timing than content. Bush’s address being scheduled at a time when he as a candidate was buying up air time in an election cycle whereas for Obama, the nearest election cycle has passed.

    Lastly, there are fundamental disagreements regarding the role of government providing public education. Some conservatives have argued that the Federal government has no business providing bridges, highways, environmental protections, banking, civil rights legislation, health care or public education. Those tend to fall within the purview of contemporary liberal, progressive Democrats. As a member of the homeschooling community myself, I can confidently lay these out as general guides for defining today’s left & right. Given these distinct differences, your argument appears to stray from a criticism of Obama addressing the children and teachers then using the questions and projects as curriculum enhancements to outright distrust of government provided educational services as, in what seems to be your view, a corrupt system in existence to indoctrinate each new generation into a left wing agenda. The two criticisms overlap but are distinctly separate issues.

    Thank you for your thought provoking discussion.

  20. UntamedWish Says:

    A follow up question:
    There is corruption, lies & scandal in all political movements. There are abuses of power through out history from all sides and extremes that fail the test of common sense & kindness. No party or ideology has a monopoly on these.
    That being said, what is it that conservatives find so offensive with children being taught civil rights, equal rights, tolerance and respect for all religions, (not just their parents religion of choice)…?
    In terms of economics, what is so offensive about the idea of passing laws that regulate the playing field such that individuals and corporations don’t cheat one another in their respective pursuits of the American Dream?
    What is the problem with the Left’s agenda? Does it boil down to strict Constitutionalism as many of Ron Paul’s supporters believe? Is it a conflict with feeling entitled to teach one’s own children hateful attitudes that have caused so many wars? Do people REALLY not see the direct connection between Galileo then and the evolution now?

    Perhaps more than taxes and budgets, the right and left have devolved into name calling and outrage because of two fundamentally basic problems: most importantly, we don’t trust each other. Each time one member of one side does something mean spirited, the other team remembers it and uses it to cover their own proverbial behinds when one of their own fails to maintain an attitude of respectfulness and so on the cycle perpetuates itself until we have United States Vice Presidents telling United States Senators to F-off on the Senate floor or yelling out during an address by the President of the United States. How about when large numbers of the American people suspect they are being lied to, not about a man’s personal failings as a husband, but about weapons of mass destruction and the call for war only to find out they in fact were….
    The second reason, I put forward, as creating this great divide, is that neither side can imagine a world where what the other side is saying makes real sense. It might have occasional merit but fundamentally the world is either flat or round… dinosaurs were either long extinct before humans arrived on the planetary scene and the world evolved or we are expected to abandon all sense of logic and historical perspective to believe that the Bible, with all its inconsistencies, various translations & hypocrisies really is exactly as it all happened…
    The left and right are divided into camps that don’t do well with ven diagrams and their areas of overlapping commonalities even though people do.
    It would be refreshing to see progress in bring out our shared values… but perhaps that’s just me succumbing to progressive thinking ;-)

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    Untamed Wish,
    So your assertion is that it doesn’t matter at all what a thing’s roots/foundation are? Foundations mean nothing, and the Republican Party and the Democrat Party is just hovering in midair, anchored by nothing? The parties mean one thing one day, and then a completely different thing the next? There are no principles that are fundamental? Sorry. Don’t buy it.

    You also very conveniently fail to mention what led to the historical argument that I had with Jeff in the first place

    Jeff associated Sen. Joe McCarthy and “McCarthyism” as an albatross around the neck of the Republican Party. And I pointed out that he did NOT want to get into a historical blame game, given the massive extent of the Democrat Party’s despicable history. In fact, I so completely succeeded in PROVING that history, that Jeff – and now you – are seeking to undermine the very premise that Jeff asserted in the first place.

    And as I rightly pointed out, that was a contemptible thing for Jeff to do. And now you’re trying to pick up where he left off?

    Going to the president/speech/school thing, people like me weren’t afraid of what Obama would say in his speech. WE WERE AFRAID OF WHAT THE TEACHERS WOULD DO WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWED.

    We have today – only a couple of weeks after that speech – an event of indoctrination and flat out brainwashing that it boggles the mind.

    Watch this video of children signing songs of praise to Obama to “honor black history month.” Watch this one. And then explain to me that teachers would NEVER indoctrinate children. And then, after that, show me the similar “conservative public teacher agenda” in 1991. I can literally post DOZENS of videos like that. Liberal political indoctrination of our children is now rampant. It is simply a fact.

    I’d like to see the video of school children singing songs of praise to George H.W. Bush, and replacing songs dedicated to GOD with “George Bush.” I challenge you to provide that.
    For the record, you are wrong that conservatives oppose bridges and highways, or even things like environmental protections. For example, the EPA was created by Richard Nixon. We most certainly DO support public projects that would not make sense being undertaken by private businesses. How would it profit a private business to build an interstate highway? Government HAS to do that. What conservatives oppose is a) giving the FEDERAL government unconstitutional powers, at the cost of the STATES that were to have those rights/powers/responsibilities, and radicalism masquerading as social action. Your last paragraph therefore sets up such a fallacious set of assumptions that I frankly can’t comment beyond that on your point.

  22. Michael Eden Says:

    Let me just cite these words:

    That being said, what is it that conservatives find so offensive with children being taught civil rights, equal rights, tolerance and respect for all religions, (not just their parents religion of choice)…?

    And first of all point out your flagrant ideological bias in framing your question that way. It was EISENHOWER who began the great task to reform civil rights after DECADES of Democrat rule had failed to do so. And the Civil Rights Acts in the early 1960s under Lyndon Johnson came about because of Republican support and in fact against Democrat opposition. A FAR larger percentage of Republicans supported it than Democrats. And Lyndon Johnson THANKED Republicans for winning the Act.

    So saying that conservatives are opposed to civil rights is just wrong on every level imaginable.

    Republicans turned away from the “civil rights” movement when it stopped being about equality and was turned into a tool for economic redistributionism. Pure and simple. Republicans turned away from the “civil rights” movement when the words of Martin Luther King (who was a registered Republican) – that people should be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character – were thrown into the trash bin.

    Next, allow me to congratulate you for sounding rather like these guys:

    Richard Dawkins says, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe in manifest falsehoods? Isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about” even as he demands the right to do just that with his atheistic evolution.

    Richard Rorty argued that secular teachers ought to “arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.” And he claimed that students are fortunate to find themselves “under the benevolent Herrshaft of people like me and to have escaped the frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.” He blatantly and arrogantly warned the parents who were literally paying to send their children to him, “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you before the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.”

    Personally, I have the view that it should be up to parents to decide what religion a child should be raised in, rather than some union public school teacher.

    It is frankly just an amazing act of chutzpah that liberals should throw God out of the schools, and then demand they they should have the right to teach children religion from a liberal “one-world” perspective that fundamentally denies what the parents of those children believe.

    Again, when you appeal to tolerance, it comes from a loaded perspective. I encourage everyone who stumbles across this to read the article, “The Intolerance of Tolerance” to see what I mean.

    A couple of points on tolerance:

    Classic tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously with the freedom to express his ideas without fear of reprisal no matter what the view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.

    Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false.

    That said, to argue that Christian parents have some obligation in the interest of “tolerance” to teach their children that religions they believe are false should be given “equal time” with their own Christianity is INTOLERANT. We teach children to respect people as equals; we DON’T teach them that all ideas are or should be equally valid.

    Your next paragraph –

    In terms of economics, what is so offensive about the idea of passing laws that regulate the playing field such that individuals and corporations don’t cheat one another in their respective pursuits of the American Dream?

    – continues your clearly warped agenda. Your argument that as a conservative I somehow support cheating is fundamentally deranged, and doesn’t deserve any kind of response beyond to point out that you are clearly an ideologue. And you again are just factually wrong. Bush and Republicans, for example, REPEATEDLY tried to pass regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would have averted our housing mortgage collapse last year. And Democrats opposed such regulation again and again.

    I might as well ask questions like, “What is so offensive about teaching that we should not hate babies like all liberals do?”

    “What is so offensive about embracing freedom and liberty rather than totalitarianism?”

    “What is so offensive about wanting to follow our founding fathers rather than Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin?”

    There’s not a lot of point in dialogue with a person who expresses such loaded ideological demagoguery of his opponent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: