Pep talk and unanswered questions

POTUS gave his nationwide speech to schoolchildren today, and most people agree it was harmless - politically speaking.

Does that mean that I - and others who outrageously blew the whistle about it - have to agree to some sort of capitulation? Not at all.

As parent and American citizen, my concerns and questions remain unanswered, in the most traditional fashion this administration seems to sport.

1) Why the text of the speech was not made public until the public uproar reached the deaf ears of the White House?

2) Why creating a lesson plan to guide teachers into the "teaching" of the speech? Why not making a casual and informal interaction, if it was supposed to be so harmless since the beginning? And why that plan was written by a group of "educators" kind of dangerously tied to the WH?

3) Why asking kids to write a letter to the president telling him how would they help him? Since when schoolchildren are supposed to help presidents at all? And why the quick whitewashing when parents started to complain?

4) Why some school districts left it to the teachers to decide whether to see the speech or not? When did parents stop being the decision-takers regarding who the want for their children's role models?

How would have we known what that speech could have been, if there was not a huge public uproar about it? The book of possibilities. I know. Pero mas vale que digan aqui grito, que aqui murio...

And those concerns remain unanswered because, again, the devil is not in the speech per se; the devil is the subtext and in everything that surrounds it.

On top of that, those who disagreed with the whole theater, have been called all sort of things; from cowards to cavemen (and women). However, in 1991, when Bush gave an education-type-of-speech, Democrats formally investigated and held hearing about it. I guess that also makes them cowards and cavemen (and women), right?

By the way, the race card could not be missing either. Just check the comment's thread; including my own - which I now see as "too" nice for the reality we're facing:

MM4QBA wrote:
I guess the Black description couldn't be absent from this forum... what does race or the color of you skin has to do with being a good or bad role model anyway? Good people and bad people come in all colors and shapes ... I don't want Obama to be role model for my children not because he is 50% Black. I don't want him to be a role model for my children because he is 100% liberal, because he is 100% statist and yes, way too socialist-inclined for my own sake. Because instead of governing from the center and truthfully unite the country beyond our differences, he has done the opposite. He has chosen to step all over the foundations of this nation and its Constitution, and with every step, the government grows more and our liberties are even more eroded. As anybody can see, there are endless reasons to reject Obama's role model, and none of them have anything to do with the color of his skin. Or the color of ours.

I stand by what I said at the beginning: politicians and their political speeches have no place in a classroom. Be that president Obama, Bush, or any other for that matter. No place.
Period.

Does that make me a radical, nut job, righ-winger, fear-monger, coward and cave woman mother?
So be it.

After the PTSD caused by my own survival under communist indoctrination since I entered kindergarten, I will not economize in precautions to prevent my son from going through the same nightmare.

FYI: Just check this ADD moment.