Creepy

I remember being accused a few years back of being a 100% backer of President Bush, agreeing with every single thing he ever said or did. My responde was always the same, that I agreed with probably six or seven out of every ten things. I argued that I liked him because I agreed with him most of the time, especially on the big issues such as security. I also really like Ronald Reagan, but when I teach on him in class I criticize the way he handled Lebanon. The way we left that country and handled hostage situations encouraged more terrorism later.

No conservative will answer that they agreed with either Bush 100% of the time and very few will say that of Reagan. You are not disloyal to the cause in conservatism for thinking freely.

Contrast that with some of Obama's followers, people who believe that he rules, not governs.

Most people saw the extremely creepy video of a schoolteacher leading children in a song of praise about Obama. Part of it was sung to the Battle Hymn of the Republic! It parroted his campaign messages and other speeches since his inauguration.

Many correctly pointed out that this goes beyond education into simple propaganda. Parents responded with anger at their children being used and then put on You Tube. It reflects the attitude common to fascist, communist, and personal dictatorships. This attitude exalts the Leader over the individual, his will over your judgment. It is way to common for a certain segemtn to adore Obama instead of simply support him.

That is frightening.

Great Quote From John Stoessel (thanks to Tracy Karol)

"I'd say the government spends money like drunken sailors but that insults drunken sailors - they spend their own money." John Stoessel said this in a talk today on health care.

Hat tip to Tracy Karol

Dumb and Dumber

I have said it before and I will say it again. Professional athletes and nightclubs do not mix. Add someone carrying a gun who does not fully respect it and you have a bad combination indeed.

Former Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress found this out the hard way. He jammed a gun into the waistband of his sweatpants and went out for a night on the town. It fell into his pants, went off, and injured him. It could have been a lot worse.

It was stupid and irresponsible in execution, but not necessarily logic. Professional athletes are targets for hateful threats or designs on their money. In other countries they have been killed over poor play. It is not dumb for an athlete to consider carrying a weapon. Carrying it in the waistband of his sweats is. Burress should have gone the legal route, gotten a conceal and carry permit, and worn it in a holster.

OK, so he was not acting brightly. Someone besides him could have gotten hurt. What should New York do with this character? Slapping two years in prison on this man went way over the top. He made a stupid mistake which was criminal. I cannot fathom this man spending two years in jail while some child molestors get less time.

This is apparently an anti-gun statement made by the authorities in New York. Make an example out of Burress. You have to wonder how many intentional criminals go free after doing much less time than this inept example of foolishness. It is not fair to Burress to be held up as an example. A better idea would be to have him star in a campaign explaining how to properly get yourself a permit and carry your weapon. Make him do some time in home confinement, then let him get back to work. Another NFL receiver got drunk and killed someone with their car. He did a lot less time than you might have expected or wanted.

Also, they obviously want him to be an example to other athletes and entertainers with more money than sense. The only thing they will see today is that Burress got shafted by the man. A better example would be an educational program starring Burress produced by the National Rifle Association and the State of New York explaining the legal process for conceal and carry as well as proper gun safety. The target audeince would be more receptive to that than an unfair sentence.

Burress got a bad deal. An appeals court needs to correct this injustice. Burress was dumb, but the justice system in this case was dumber.

Socialist Realism

During the 1930s, the big three dictatorships left no stone unturned in looking for ways to motivate the masses. They used the mass media and even art to push their agendas. Official artists of the regime created paintings, poetry, novels, and other works to promote the goals of the beloved leader.

Stalin's Soviet Union even gave this movement a style, "socialist realism." My Soviet history professor at Marshall, Professor David Woodward, referred jokingly to "boy meets tractor" stories. Boy meets tractor, boy falls in love with tractor, boy and tractor meet officially set grain quota, boy and tractor live happily ever after.

This replaced the former revolutionary style of avant garde art. What the avant garde lacked in coherence, it did make up for in individualism. Stalin was not interested in individualism, or art really. He wanted art, like everything else, to serve the state. And Stalin, like Louis XIV, believed in "L'etat c'est moi" or "I am the state."

Fast forward to last week when the National Endowment for the Arts was caught organizing the 21st century of socialist realism. The White House "Office of Public Engagement" (run by a woman named "Buffy") and others organized a conference call with other groups to outline how the National Endowment for the Arts can promote the Obama agenda. Sure they can pick from four master topics, but please help out. We know you are eager to. That is a paraphrase of what they actually said.

The hat tip goes to Big Hollywood.com Here is the link to the story.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/

Because He Obviously Has Nothing Else to Worry About

The politically weak Obama requested that New York Governor David Patterson (D) abandon his bid for re-election out of concern that he could lose the race. Obama considers the race too important for the Democrats to lose and Patterson must step aside. Thus spake Obama.

Does the arrogance of this administration know no bounds? How will New York Democrats react? Historically the governor's mansion is a powerful position that finds itself at odds with the New York City leadership. The US Representative from a district in Queensm Gregory Meeks, made the request. He has strong ties to the president.

Patterson is unpopular. His unpopularity comes from the fact that he follows the liberal Democratic playbook to a T. The state's economy deterorated and he has proposed a bizarre range of taxes instead of spending cuts. Yes, Patterson is less than effective. Still, according to tradition, the voters select the candidates, not the president.

This does come on the heels of New York reviewing its association with ACORN, one of the first Democratic states to do so. Patterson also did not select Obama's hand picked Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton as US Senator.

The New York media and voting population should be outraged that Obama is trying to pick their governor for them.

From Revolutionaries to Aristocracy

In the 1770s Massachusetts made a very definite statement about its opinion of mindless hereditary aristocracy. This week a majority of polled voters in that same state made their own kind of statement.

Most Massachusetts voters said they preferred Hugo Chavez's buddy Joe Kennedy II. Just like his ancestor, he prefers the apparently orderly authority of a dictator to freedom and democracy. Kennedy appeared on commercials for Citgo that tried to restore the Venezuelan state oil company's image after Chavez stole elections. Analysts agree that the state has a soft spot in its heart for the Kennedy name. If you ran a pit bull named Kennedy up there it could win a congressional seat.

True, the Kennedy family has brought to the state a national leadership role larger than its declining share of the electoral college and congressional represetnation. It's not hard to understand why they would have a sense of loyalty. However you have to look behind the name. You cannot expect that all the members of a family will have the same qualities as those that have led in the past. This is not Rome, Senate seats should not be seen as a family trust. Then again we are a democracy. The voters have the right to choose.

Problem is that I am not sure what the Kennedys have accomplished outside of being tabbed as natural leaders. President Kennedy had some noteworthy moments. Robert Kennedy's reputation for ruthlessness died when he was assassinated. What had Ted Kennedy actually done? I may be simply misinformed, but what did he do to earn his leadership role outside of being the brother of a president? What have any of the other Kennedys actually done whose names have been tossed forward for public office?

Assigning someone a position of importance based upon a family name and little else smacks of aristocracy. Massachusetts is not the only state that gives a pass to its first families. However it was at one time the first state to toss that idea of authority aside.