Apparently not .... except that most of us really do care about the issues, not the tissues. So we don't care what cards the opposition plays. We aren't playing. We are trying to keep our nation free.

I listened to a talk show host on conservative radio querying callers on why it was important whether the President addresses schoolchildren or not. He mentioned that two previous Presidents had done so, and that most people wouldn't complain if the President showed up in person to address the class; they would generally consider it an honor.

I have no children, in school or otherwise, but if I had schoolchildren of any age at this moment in history, I would not want any President, of any political stripe, addressing my children. I consider it one step to positioning the government between a child and his parent. If the President wants to give an address on television at 9 PM, and talk to parents about how important it is for them to be involved in their children's schooling, to encourage the children to work hard and stay in school, I have no problem with that. I agree with the sentiments, but even if I didn't, I still have no problem with the government telling me what they would like to see me do. I would have a real problem with the government going around me and usurping my parental authority.

Sure, this time it might be innocuous enough. Study hard, etc. Parents should be telling kids that to begin with, as well as other things. The after-speech lesson materials were creepy with their focus on helping Obama, and at first I thought, maybe if he had just said, "How does the President want me to help my country?" But I realized that, for me, I don't want the government interfering in my home or my family. If I had a child, I assume I would not be abusive and so the government would not need to get involved for the child's welfare. I think it is my responsibility to raise my children and encourage the behavior I want to see. It is not the President's purview to do this.

Would I have protested back in the days of Reagan or Bush41? Probably not; my political edges were blurrier. The current President is trying to change the nation in fundamental ways that I don't agree with. The fear he is promoting (e.g. everything seems to be a crisis that can only be resolved through bigger government) has sharpened my political focus. This has helped me to realize that I don't want the President addressing any kids. Would a visit from an unpleasant leader such as Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro be an honor? No, and Obama is not a dictator who has had millions of people killed. But who knows what the next President will be like? Even if you like this one, it is more prudent to set a new precedent, that the President should talk to the parents, not the kids.

Maybe you think it doesn't matter what I think on this topic since I don't have kids. Well, my property taxes help support the schools, and someday the children in school now will be running the society. I would hope that our nation will never be too impressed by its elected officials, who have feet of clay just like the rest of us.

We adults have listened to many Presidential speeches since Obama took office. He is overexposed, and perhaps the address to the schoolchildren was an attempt to find a new audience. One speech might not corrupt them, even if he was another Hitler telling them to inform on their parents (which he is not). What is to stop him from addressing the students every month or week? Over time, his influence could exceed that of their parents. As parents, people should be very wary.