Climate Change Fanaticism Is All About Government Power

I am not a scientist, nor am I qualified to judge the value of the scientific data now being gathered about the Earth's climate. I have, however, spent more-years-than-I-care-to-admit advising businesses in matters related to financial, investment and budgetary decisions. Because of the nature of accounting work, professionals usually acquire the mental discipline to find the pertinent facts necessary to justify decisions made. This disciplined mindset tends to sweep aside the murky gray and to reveal situations as black or white, yes or no, up or down.

Until today, I considered myself a climate skeptic, and as a result, I entered into debates on every issue put forward covering unsubstantiated claims and useless proposals from the Alarmist crowd covering such topics as taxing carbon, CO2 levels, oil drilling, renewable energy, global warming, er cooling, and wild projections of our doom as a result of human-caused environmental changes. I was and I remain convinced that there has been no empirical evidence presented that human activity is the cause of changing climate conditions.

Today I reviewed two writings that took my mind above the fray. Now I will no longer engage in idiotic ideological discussions with environmental whackos, those unduly influenced by them and those who will benefit from the implementation of immense unneeded projects. First of all, there is the breathtaking Prologue to Jurassic Park, written by Michael Crichton. The second article is a review of Mike Hulme's book, Why We Disagree about Climate Change, Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity.

Michael Crichton takes our minds above the magnificent sphere that we live on and reminds us that we are but mere pissants in the scheme of our environment:

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land.

Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years.

Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety.

Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time.

A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
Mike Hulme is a UK academic deeply involved with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which influences the climate policies of governments individually (including the U.S.) and worldwide through the UN. He is among those who has declared that the global man-made warming debate is over. He says that climate change is useful:
“Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.”

In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame the global warming issue to achieve unrelated goals such as sustainable development, income redistribution, population control, social justice, and many other items on the liberal/socialist wishlist.

Like the notorious Stephen Schneider, who once said, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have. ... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest,” Hulme writes, “We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.”

These “myths,” he writes, “transcend the scientific categories of `true’ and `false’.”

"The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come."
I have concluded that climate change controversy does not arise from "intoxicating vanity" as Crichton imagined but from political arrogance imposed on us to further the power of the government over the governed; while, at the same time, lining the pockets of the politicians and power brokers. World socialistic tendencies have now become Marxist and the present government in Washington is marching lockstep with this new world order.

Bibi asks UN: "Have you no shame?"

ACORN Stupidly Sues McKeefe, Giles and Breitbart

Politico reports that ACORN has filed suit in Baltimore against filmmakers James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles along with Andrew Breitbart, whose Big Government web-log displayed the videos.

The complaint: "The video and audio footage was taken without the knowledge of Williams and/or Thompson and in violation of Maryland's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code §§ 10-402(a) and 10-410, which requires two party consent to all electronic surveillance. Violation of the law is a felony, and entitles parties whose rights were violated to sue."
ACORN, which apparently is unlicensed to operate in the state of Maryland, is risking further inquiry into its shady operations by challenging the legality, rather than the content of the videos. The criminal lawsuit filed by ACORN, et al brings back memories of another Democrat Party scandal in 1999:
Linda Tripp, whose secretly recorded phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, was charged Friday with illegal wiretapping, making her the only major figure in the sex scandal to face a criminal charge. A grand jury indicted Tripp on two counts of breaking Maryland's wiretapping law. [Prosecutors decided to drop the case when Lewinsky's testimony was suppressed.]
Leon H. Wolf evaluates the ACORN case over at RedState:
Here is the text of the suit, which is brought under the MD Wiretap Act. The suit alleges that Andrew Breitbart, working in concert with O’Keefe and Giles, intercepted an “oral communication” using an electronic device, which would indeed be a violation of the act. The problem, however, is that the statute specifically defines “oral communication” in section 10-401(2)(i) as: “any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.”

What this means, as established by the clear text of the statute (and Maryland caselaw, including Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Maryland, 342 Md. 363 (Md. 1996)) is that at least one of the parties to the conversation must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation. In other words, if someone stands up in the town square and shouts out loud and someone else records it, that is not a violation of the act.

The problem for ACORN is that, as a matter of law, the employees at ACORN had no reasonable expectation of privacy in what they said to members of the public who entered their offices. As made clear by Katz v. United States and its progeny (made applicable specifically to the Maryland Wiretap Act by cases such as Malpas v. State, 695 A.2d 588, 595 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)), “What a person exposes knowingly to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”

Get that? The conversations in question were knowingly exposed in a place of business to two customers who walked in off the streets. There is and can be absolutely no expectation of privacy for the ACORN employees in question. As such, the conversations are not “private conversations” under the Maryland Wiretap Act as a matter of law.

Furthermore, to the extent that ACORN wants to go after Breitbart (and I hear they are wanting to go after Fox next!) for publishing this information of clear public concern, they might want to check the First Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court on that question before getting themselves in further trouble.

Global Climate Data Scandal

The narrative that follows comes from Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and the author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.  The expose' appears only on conservative blogs such as What's Up With That and National Review Online.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data."
The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

WaPo Goes Full Circle


If you were given to platitudes, you would dub this an instance of What Goes Around Comes Around. Karma. Give a little, and—30 years later—watch it land a publishing deal.  [2002 Washington Post 8 May C1]


Dan Calabrese at North Star National makes a brilliant observation. He asks that we imagine this newspaper coverage of Watergate in 1972:

Post Reporters Deny Using Questionable Tactics to Entrap Nixon

The proposition seemed outlandish. Two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, would accept information from a secret source who would only be known as “Deep Throat.” This information would be so damaging to president of the United States, it would unleash a scandal that would shake the foundations of the nation’s government to its core.

Woodward and Bernstein deny being beholden to left-wing interests, but admit taking advice in their reporting from left-wing editor Ben Bradlee. They insist that no left-wing organization bankrolled their reporting efforts.

The politics of 1972 were a little more civil than today's leftists, so we never saw a newspaper article that questioned the integrity of Woodward and Bernstein. But Calabrese points out that The Washington Post now has political issues to promulgate, so they employ Alinsky tactics in this critical article written on the BigGovernment.com expose' of ACORN in which the veracity of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles is questioned:

O’Keefe insists that he and Giles’s work was done independently and rejects liberal suggestions that the videos were bankrolled by conservative organizations. He does, however, acknowledge receiving help and advice from a conservative columnist and Web entrepreneur.

As Power Line points out, the "Iron Lady" attempted to infer that there was racist motivation behind the investigation, when the newspaper wrote:

Though O'Keefe described himself as a progressive radical, not a conservative, he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.

"Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization," he said. "No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find."

So we can contemplate, as North Star National did, exactly what would have happened "if only they'd had YouTube in 1972."

ACORN Can Be Tried Under RICO

Barack Obama's former employer, ACORN, is now being exposed as a radical leftist organization steeped in the philosophy and lawlessness of Saul Alinsky.  The Washington Times editorial on  the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) makes some damning points:

Allegations are that ACORN's get-out-the-vote efforts have produced thousands of fraudulent registrations. Since 2004 it has come under scrutiny for producing thousands of fraudulent registrations, and 15 employees intent on exploiting their pay-per-registration policy to make money have been indicted or convicted of voter registration fraud.

ACORN's work has been primarily focused on affordable housing for low-income families first through community activism to force improvements to public housing.  In 1991, ACORN began using its community organizing and protest activities to encourage home ownership, lobbying for banks to offer low-interest loans to people of limited financial means with little to no collateral. ACORN's work to defeat the weakening of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1991 found members protesting in the halls of Congress.
Peter Roff  reported in Newsweek:
This latest round of problems for ACORN may be the best documented, but they are not the first nor, for that matter, are they the most serious. A report issued last summer by the Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to Sunday's Washington Times, "presented evidence that ACORN had engaged in criminal misconduct."
Among the findings, the report said, ACORN:
  •  Engaged in tax evasion, obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a cover-up of nearly $1 million embezzled by Dale Rathke, brother of group founder Wade Rathke;
  • Committed investment fraud, depriving the public of the right to "honest services," and engaging in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce;
  • Conspired to defraud the United States by using taxpayer dollars for partisan political activities;
  • Submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Labor; and,
  • Violated the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act.
Any one of these is a serious allegation. Taken together, they give ACORN most every appearance of being some sort of massive criminal enterprise worthy of a federal investigation of the sort made under the terms of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act—or RICO. In fact the group and its affiliates are currently the target of more than a dozen lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election alone.

We will know that Obama is serious about shutting down ACORN's  community organizing racket when  an independent counsel begins an actual investigation of the organization.  Since George Soros and the radical leftist base of the Democrat party will  not support such an action, nothing will happen.

Americans Unwilling to Pay for Health Reform

Healthcare Finance News  reports on an important  study published by Hoover Institution fellows Daniel P. Kessler and David W. Brady in Health Affairs.   Their paper, entitled "Putting The Public's Money Where It's Mouth Is" reveals that Americans are unwilling to pay for health reform.

Many Americans may support the idea of health reform, but only a minority are willing to pay higher taxes to accomplish it, according to a study published in the journal Health Affairs.

In a January 2009 online survey, researchers at Stanford University's Hoover Institution asked Americans whether they would be willing to pay the higher taxes to cut the number of uninsured Americans by either a half or a quarter, through either Medicaid expansion or government subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people and their employers purchase insurance.

Researchers at the conservative think tank also asked whether survey participants would pay higher taxes to support a government subsidy to help chronically ill people purchase health coverage. Respondents were told that this last option would have only a small impact on the overall number of uninsured people, but that it would help everyone else get insurance by subsidizing the sickest people in the market.

Economic Domestic Terrorism Continues With China Tire Tariff

Obama is wrong again . . . this time in imposing an additional 35% tariff on Chinese tire imports at the urging of the Steelworkers Union and without consent of the Congress. The Truth About Cars editorializes on the soon-to-be-coming trade war. We are now engaged in a pissing match with our largest creditor which imported $11 billion in US automobiles in the first half of this year. Below is the cogent points of the editorial but be sure to read the entire editorial here:

President Obama paid his outstanding union dues and slapped a 35 percent punitive tariff on Chinese car and light truck tires exported to the USA. The new duty will take effect on September 26 and comes in addition to an existing 4 percent duty, Reuters reports. Everybody, except for the United Steelworkers, agrees that this is one of the most boneheaded decisions of the new administration.

No American tire manufacturer supported the case. Cooper Tire even publicly opposed it. No wonder: US tire companies are the biggest offenders (in the eyes of the United Steelworkers), having moved most if not all of their budget segment tire production to low labor cost overseas sites. Chinese tires are not in the USA because China wants to rape and pillage the market. Chinese tires are here, because US tire companies set up joint ventures in China to make what the market demands: Tires for less.

China is not the only exporter of budget tires to the USA. According to the Wall Street Journal, 43 percent of the tires sold in the USA are imported. Only 11 percent are imported from China. The far larger share is imported from low labor cost countries such as Malaysia, India, or Central Europe. What the boneheaded decision does is simply shift tire production from China to other low cost producing countries. These countries can take advantage of 11 percent of the tires effectively removed from the US market. The low cost producers can raise their prices until the market settles. The American consumer will bear the cost. Not a single new job is created in US tire companies. Jobs will be lost at tire distributors and dealers. This decision achieves nothing for America except higher prices and troubles with China.

The American Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition wrote in a letter to the US Trade Representative John Kirk: “The absence of tires from China in the market will raise costs to downstream consuming industries, including automobile manufacturers, will limit consumer choices and affect most seriously those with the fewest resources. Thus, these tariffs will be the most regressive of taxes.”

Obama's Narcissism and the Straw Man

Writing in Commentary's Contentions blog, Peter Wehner focuses on perhaps the most outrageous "straw man" put forth last night by the president in his unbelievable speech in defense of his government-run health care initiative. Obama said:

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned. Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care. … Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost.
Narcissistic people see the actions of others as results of their own deep-seeded mores and thought patterns. Obama's own twisted thinking is automatically portrayed in the motives he attributes to others. How dare these people disagree with their government? He really thinks, how dare they disagree with me?

Peter Wehner continues his commentary:
This is a case of what is known as projection. It is by now hard for one person to keep up with all the false, misleading, or fantastic claims President Obama has made about his efforts to nationalize our health-care system. They include, but are not limited to, Obama’s claim that the reforms he has endorsed would cut the cost of health care (they would increase them); that they would not add to the deficit (they would add hugely to it); that Medicare benefits would not be cut (they most certainly would); that eliminating “waste and fraud” is enough to cover their proposed reductions in future Medicare spending (the claim is risible); that under his reform, “if you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period” (millions would not); that his plan would not mean government funding for abortion (it would).

It is not enough for Obama to repeat his false claims, day after day, speech after speech. No, he must also portray himself as America’s Socrates, our voice of reason amidst the angry mob, an intrepid truth teller, a singularly unifying and visionary figure, and a man astonishingly free from the ideological baggage that defines his critics. He views himself as the adult in a world of children.

He is also a man of astonishing arrogance. “I am not the first President to take up this cause [health care],” Obama said last night, “but I am determined to be the last.”

Victor Davis Hanson identified Obama's personality defect here, which I believe can only be described as malignant narcissism.

Obama's Radical Propaganda Video

Following closely on the heels of the brouhaha surrounding Barack Obama's nationwide address to schoolchildren during school hours comes word that propaganda is already being disseminated. The leftist video below was produced by Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions:



Children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah were shown this short video on August 28. Danny Davids at SearchWarp defines the issues with the video:

It appears there are two issues with the video. The first is that some of the causes these celebrities pledge to support, like stem cell research, are "hot button" issues that already cause concern among a significant portion of the American population. The second is two statements made towards the end of the video. The first is issued by Anthony Kiedis of the band Red Hot Chili Peppers. As he kisses his tattooed biceps, he says, "I pledge to be of service [kiss] to Barack Obama [kiss]." Later as Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher stand side by side, they say, "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind." It's the idea promoted in this video that the people of the United States should pledge to be a servant to the President, rather than the President being the servant of the people, that has opponents so upset.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami hammers home the reality of American exceptionalism that Obama, with his foreign upbringing will never understand:

American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.

There is no doubt in my mind that an "I pledge" video would be better accepted if it started or ended with: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America . . ."

Obama Wants to Indoctrinate Your Children

Listen to Glenn Beck and read the advice from ByteStyle.tv:

This Tuesday Sept. 8th President Obama is planning to address the nation's school children DIRECTLY, through a live internet broadcast at 12 noon. If you do not want Obama to have access to your children to say whatever he wants to them during their school hours without you being there, there are a few things you can do:

-Call the school's principal to find out whether the school was planning to show the speech, and if they are, let the principal know that you feel the role of the school is to educate, not to indoctrinate, and that you do not consent to have your child spoken to directly by any politician or government official, for any reason. Maybe if enough parents call, the school will not show the speech to students.

-If the school is going ahead with plans to show the speech, you can keep your child out of school that day.

-You can write up a consent form that would allow a parent of your choice, in your community, to remove your child (and all other children whose parents consent to it) from the area where the speech is being broadcast, and for that period of time, engage the children in some alternate educational activity, such as reading the text of the Constitution, for example.

Here is the government website, with details of the event:
http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml

and a letter from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to School Principals, encouraging them to broadcast the speech, and to accompany it with other activities promoting the same agenda:
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html
[Check out the suggested activities that are meant to accompany the speech-- I think the intention is for schools to make this a day-long event in honor of the President]

The ostensible message that students should work hard to educate themselves may seem relatively benign, but the insidious subtext is that you should work hard not for yourself and your own individual happiness, but for the country, society, the state-- to make America more competitive in the world, to raise standards of living (through redistribution, presumably) for all Americans, etc... I personally don't want my children to grow up believing that they exist to serve the state, that it is somehow normal to think this way.

But fundamentally, it doesn't really matter what it is that Obama is planning to tell American children on Tuesday. What does matter is that it is totally inappropriate for him to be addressing children directly at a time when they are away from their parents, and a captive audience in their classrooms. State indoctrination of children is a hallmark of totalitarian government. Don't let it happen here.