Death Records Now

The commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Education ordered a review on Friday following the posting of a YouTube video depicting school children singing the praises of President Obama.

In a statement to FOXNews.com, Education Department spokeswoman Beth Auerswald said Commissioner Lucille Davy has directed the school’s superintendent to review the matter. Auerswald said Davy wants to ensure that students can celebrate Black History Month without "inappropriate partisan politics in the classroom."

"In addition, it is our understanding the teacher in question retired at the end of the last school year," the statement continued.

Auerswald declined to indicate exactly what the review would entail or possible ramifications.

As critics of the video claimed it amounted to "indoctrination," the tension at B. Bernice Young Elementary School escalated to such a degree Thursday that the school was placed temporarily on lockdown after its principal received death threats over a YouTube video that showed nearly 20 children being taught songs lauding the president, though back-to-school night events continuing as planned Thursday night at the school.

Video of the students at the Burlington, N.J., school shows them singing songs seemingly overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president’s name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country’s economy No. 1 again."

One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus’ name is replaced with Obama’s: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."

The video has set off some families in Burlington, who said they were horrified that their children at the being "indoctrinated" to view the president like a cult figure.

"I’m stunned — I can’t believe it’s our school," said Jim Pronchik, who told FOXNews.com his 8-year-old son Jimmy was one of the 18 students in the video. "We don’t want to praise this guy like he’s a god or an idol or a king or anything like that. That’s the wrong message to be sending."

Click here to see the full lyrics to both songs.

Pronchik said he and his wife were never informed about the lesson, which the superintendent of Burlington Township schools says was held in February as part of Black History Month "to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country."

But Andrea Ciemnolonski, the parent of another one of the students in the video, said the song was part of a second-grade project on a variety of topics related to the month of February, such as Groundhog Day, Valentine’s Day and Presidents Day.

"They did songs about President Washington, Lincoln, and they did do one about President Obama," Ciemnolonski said. "My daughter was in the class that did the songs about Obama. It was black history month. … It was something for the kids to celebrate."

Ciemnolonski said she "just can’t look at it as indoctrination," though she added, "The comparisons made were a little exuberant."

Superintendent Christopher Manno said in a written statement Thursday that the taping itself was out of order, but failed to address whether the lesson was approved. "The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized," he wrote in a note to parents and the media.

Other families arriving at Bernice Young Elementary to pick up their children said they were outraged at the songs, which also tout a fair-pay bill Obama signed in January: "He said we must be clear today/Equal work means equal pay."

"I felt this was reminiscent of 1930s Germany, and the indoctrination of children to worship their leader," said Robert Bowen, father of two children at Bernice Young Elementary.

"I thought that if this was a civics class in say high school or upper level middle school, in might be appropriate to discuss policies or politics, but as far as children in first grade, second grade — those types of levels — it’s inappropriate to discuss how a president is changing the world after only six weeks in office."

Parents said the songs were performed in Elvira James’ second grade class. James, who refused to comment to FOXNews.com, retired at the end of the previous school year on a full pension in New Jersey.

Bowen said he thought there should be consequences for having provided such a one-sided lesson to impressionable students there.

"It’s something that there should be serious repercussions for … the administration here, and I think the school board needs to be answerable to the parents of the community," said Bowen. School board members did not respond to requests for comment.

Though the school was not planning to address the tape during back-to-school-night events, many parents were heading in with with a lot of questions about the tape.

"This video is disturbing," said a grandparent name
FOX NEWS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

wow i live in NJ and had no idea

Okay, here’s what I did: I went to vote-smart.org and opened two windows showing Obama’s and Clinton’s voting records side by side, trying to see how they match up head to head. In other words, I didn’t look at anything before 2005. This seemed fairest to me — it allows both candidates to have the chance to vote or not vote and shows where they
differ and if I can say I prefer one candidate based on voting record (so for now, not taking anything else into consideration). I also wanted to do this on my own rather than rely on some 3rd party (aside from vote-smart itself, which doesn’t put every last vote down, but I think they’re fairly unbiased) who might be biased.

Here’s what I learned:

* They voted identically something like 90% of the time. No big surprise. So now it comes down to how they differ.
* Obama did a whole lot of non-voting. For some of these I applaud him for it — he NV’d for almost none of the symbolic resolutions like “sense of the Senate on Guantanamo” or whether to condemn moveon.org for the “General Betray-us” ad. These resolutions are stupid time-wasters and I don’t think they should be dignified with a vote. Good job Obama. However on a bunch of other bills and amendments, some quite toothy, with budget ramifications, policy changes, thorny divisive issues, etc., he simply didn’t vote. That seems cowardly to me — even if a bill’s outcome is known, you should take a stand. Clinton gets points for having far fewer of those and I think I saw maybe 1 instance max where he voted and she didn’t (but I can’t remember). That being said, about 50% of the time when she voted and he didn’t I didn’t like how she voted. I think 1 point for Obama for courageous NV on symbolic resolutions and 1 point for Clinton for couarge in difficult situations, even when the outcome was not what I would have liked (both of them had plenty of instances of voting “wrong” that show they’re more conservative than I am).

Obama=1, Clinton=1

Some examples of meaningful Clinton vote/Obama no-votes:
$3b amendment for border fence – Clinton=Y, Obama=NV
SCHIP reauthorization – Clinton=Y, Obama=NV
DHS appropriations – Clinton=Y, Obama=NV

So now, let’s look at the votes where Clinton and Obama voted differently:

Tax Reconciliation Act of 2006

(http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3795&can_id=55463)
Clinton=Y, Obama=N. Passed 66-31 and 55-44 (each branch votes twice…maybe changes were made). It’s law as of 6/06. Doesn’t sound like a wonderful bill — I’m not in general a fan of tax credits or defense funding, and this bill does both. I can’t figure out why they voted the way they did based on statements — no public record statements around the time of voting seemed relevant for Clinton and Obama said something about wanting to give katrina victims a break, but it seems weak to neg the bill just on not getting his amendment through. I guess point for Obama here.

Obama=2, Clinton=1

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006

(http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3883&can_id=55463)
Clinotn=Y, Obama=N. Passed 71-25 but held in house and died. Drilling for oil in the gulf of mexico. I’m not so against this — true, it can be bad news environmentally, but i’d rather drill in the water than on land. I’m a little amused at Clinton’s speech about it:

“I believe that as part of a balanced energy policy, we need to expand domestic oil and gas production where it has local support and can do so in an environmentally sound way. I think the bill before the Senate meets that test, and that is why I am voting for it. However, I want to make it clear that New Yorkers do not support drilling off Long Island, or in the Finger Lakes, or in the Great Lakes, and I will vehemently oppose any bill that would open any of these areas up for drilling.”

I mean, heck, I don’t want it in my back yard either. I’m kind of surprised she phrased it that way…To hell with the South, let ‘em have their dirty oil. Obama was more hard-core (both commented that they were annoyed the Republicans prevented any amendments to the bill that would, for example, allow for non-oil research, etc.) and said:

“Instead of making tough political decisions about how to reduce our insatiable demand for oil, this bill continues to lull the American people into thinking that we can drill our way out of our energy problems. We can’t, and for that reason, I plan to vote against this bill.”

Definite point for Obama here.

Obama=3, Clinton=1

Energy Policy Act of 2005

(http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3592&can_id=55463)
Clinton=N, Obama=Y. Passed 85-12, then 74-26. Passed the house. Signed. It’s law. Extends daylight saving, adds ethanol to gas, various tax credits and funding for a bunch of non-oil technologies, including, unfortunately, “clean coal.”

Clinton said:

“I oppose the bill for two reasons. First, it contains a number of highly objectionable provisions. Second, it simply ignores several of our most pressing energy challenges, such as our dependence on foreign oil… The bill includes billions in subsidies for mature energy industries, including oil and nuclear power. These are giveaways of taxpayer money that do nothing to move us toward the next generation of energy technologies…the main reason that I must oppose this bill is that it simply doesn’t address the most pressing and important energy challenges that we face. It is a missed opportunityto reduce our dependence on foreign oil, spur the development of renewable resources, and address climate change.”

She mentions some things that got dropped in committee that would have made the bill better. Fair enough.Obama said:

“it will help Illinois and start America down the path to energy independence by doubling ethanol use, greatly increasing the availability of E85 ethanol pumps, and investing in combination plug-in hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles, as well as clean-coal technology.”

I’m anti-ethanol because it’s still dirty and helps big corn, which Obama supports. Understandably, as he’s from IL, but it’s still a pander. Point goes to Clinton.

Obama=3, Clinton=2

Confirmation of Thomas Griffith to DC Circuit. (2005)

(http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3535&can_id=55463)
Clinton=N, O=Y. confirmed 73-24. Aside from accidentally practicing law illegally for a while in DC (his bar certification lapsed) I can’t find much of interest about this guy. Neither Clinton nor Obama mentioned this guy. So no points.

Obama=3, Clinton=2

Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment (2006)

(http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3872&can_id=55463)
Clinton=N, Obama=Y. Most confusing title ever. yes means “we can’t take your guns in an emergency if they’re already legal.” The amendment passed 84-16 and the bill 100-0 (!) but it appears to have died in conference or something… I think this was a Katrina reaction or something, but I’m all for reducing gun rights whenever possible. Neither of them spoke about this, so I give Clinton the point for trying to keep guns out of my cold dead hands.

Obama=3, Clinton=3

Cluster Munitions Amendment (2006)

(http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3897&can_id=55463)
Clinton=N, Obama=Y. Amendment failed 30-70. Would have prevented any funding for cluster munitions that could be used near civilian populations. These are bombs that have small sub-bombs. Nasty stuff. Nobody spoke on them, so Obama gets the points for trying to keep down the death.

Obama=4, Clinton=3

USEMA Amendment (2006)

(http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3869&can_id=55463)
Clinton=N, Obama=Y. Passed 87-11 but the bill doesn’t seem to have passed. Would have created the United States Emergency Management Authority under the Department of Homeland Security to replace the Federal Emergency Management Agency, right after the Katrina debacle. Let me point out two problems with this.

1. Changing the name of a bad situation doesn’t fix the situation.
2. USEMA is harder to pronounce than FEMA, and sounds way too much like USAMA for my tastes.

Clinton scores a point for not caving to stupidity. Neither talked about USEMA, though Clinton had a speech trying to move FEMA out from under DHS, which I approve of.

Obama=4, Clinton=4

Funny…I thought Obama was going to win. Nope. On voting record I declare a push. However, voting record is not the only thing to look at. But it’s enough for this email, which took a really really long time to write.

I actually read your piece and am glad that you took the time to do that. I disagree with you analysis of many of those votes but, hey….

The major area wherer you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, is the subject of Sense of the Senate resolutions for which you "applaud" Sen. Obama for casting what is referred to as a NO VOTE. You categorize these as "stupid time wasters" which you "don’t think should be dignified with a vote."
There is a long tradition of these in the US Senate and they are proceeded by serious debate which you may watch on C-SPAN. They are taken extremely seriously, are attended by the full membership of the Senate and votes on these resolutions DO count.

One of the resolutions in particular that you mention regarded a vote by the Senate to condemn a group that had smeared the commander of the US forces in Iraq.
You might have considered it a "good job" that Senator Obama did not have the courage of his convictions on this issue, but his refusal to take a stand was widely regarded as a simple lack of spine.

Sen. Obama is asking to be the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, yet on that day, he refused to say publicly whether he supported the Commander of our troops in Iraq. Did he think that General Petraeus is a traitor? Does he think that today?
Whatever he thinks, Obama should be willing to say it or he does not have the courage to be President.