President Barack Obama and the U. S. Department of Education’s plan to address school children nationwide in the classroom has sparked an incredible amount of impassioned controversy and sent those who support the President’s classroom invasion to the internet scrambling to find examples of Republicans who may have committed the same onerous act.

The presumptive reason for the frenzy being the ability for Obama’s supporters to say, “You did it, now we can, too” or “Hey, it was okay then, but it’s not now”, or look “Two wrongs do make a right.”  Which will most certainly be followed by cries of “Hypocrite!” and strings of unpublishable profanity from both sides.  Let's face it, if the shoe were on the Republican foot, the Democrats would be just as angry.  Enough.  Here’s the deal folks.

Ronald Reagan addressed school children in November of 1988, as his two-terms in office were winding down.  Why no outcry?  Ronald Reagan’s address was delivered on national television via CSPAN.  So what? 

Here’s what:  In delivering the address nationally parents were not separated from the event.  Parents had the ability to be instantly included, not excluded, while someone (even the President of The United States) addressed their children without parental oversight.  Please note, I said “parental” not “adult” oversight.

In addition, there was no “lesson plan” delivered to the children to follow, and no assignments issued to the kids as follow up to Reagan’s speech by finding ways to “serve” Reagan.

In 1991, George H.W. Bush also addressed children in the classroom. This time it was done as part of an event related to space exploration and was part of a National Space Science Symposium.

George H.W. Bush, gave a brief speech and then did Q & A with the kids, the entire transcript of which is HERE.

So, no problem from the left regarding this speech, right?  Wrong!  Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), who was the House Majority Leader, said, "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students."

Bush’s speech was a closed-circuit speech, not nationally or publicly televised.  I don’t like that either.  I don’t agree with it, and had I been a parent back in ’91 I would have been equally against such a speech outside of my ability to supervise it with my children as I am with Obama’s planned speech.

However, there was also still one major difference between George Bush 41’s address to the students and Obama’s planned address.  Bush did not have a lesson plan follow up designed to encourage children to support him personally.

On to today and Obama.  Since the controversy erupted, Obama’s people have moved quickly to change the language and focus of the planned September 8 speech.  Why?  If it wasn’t politically motivated, why change it?  If it wasn’t indoctrination, why change it?  If you were right, why not stand by your original plan?  Should certain words have been calibrated differently?  Again!

According to a report from ABC News Senior White House Reporter, Jake Tapper, The White House has changed the language in the original “Lesson Plans”.

Heather Higginbottom, deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said it was "inartfully worded."

"We changed it. The whole lesson plan speaks to setting goals in increasing their educational achievement," she said.

“Inartfully worded”? “I could've calibrated those words differently," – Barack Obama.  What’s up with all the misspeaking and poorly calibrated inartfully worded info?

According to his supporters Obama has the greatest intellect of any person to ever walk the face of the earth.  How can it be that such inartfully worded plans disseminate from the White House in such poorly calibrated ways so often, even when Joe Biden isn’t speaking?   Doesn’t anyone there look at this stuff before it goes public?  Or are they like children who think, let’s push the boundaries as far as we can and see what we can get away with?

For example:  This current incident is not the first case of Obama targeting your children.  Please see the following screen shot from Obama’s website.  This particular language was removed quickly after a backlash from the people:

Under the heading “America Serves” was the following statement:

“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school (that’s 11 year olds, folks) and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

Nothing wrong with public service.  Our family serves, our 11 year old serves.  There is however something fundamentally wrong with government mandated service for children.

Here’s the deal.  This whole “let me speak to your kids without you present”, and without your consent…which no one asked for by the way…is not a Republican issue.  It’s not a Democrat issue.  It’s not a conservative, nor a liberal, issue.  It’s not even a political issue for me.  It’s a Daddy issue.

I want the President of the United States of America to uphold his oath of office, and to be the leader of our nation.I don’t care if that President is Ronald Reagan, either of the Bushes, Clinton or Obama.

Politicians have made a big deal about their kids being “off-limits”.  From Clinton to the Bush twins to Obama, every sitting president and presidential candidate has said, “My kids are off-limits”.  Guess what, Mr. President, so are mine.

Schools should be teaching reading, writing, math, science, and yes civics – not politics – not political ideology.  Big Difference!

Please see the related stories below find out how your school district will be handling the President’s planned September 8 speech and “Lesson Plan”.The Cypress Times will update that information as it is confirmed.