Better Than Drudge

recent posts

about

Saul Alinsky Meets Dr. Seuss: Obama Pens Children’s Book

CesarChavezDay By Selwyn Duke

When discussing a new study about liberals’ and conservatives’ favorite television shows recently, pundit Bill O’Reilly and his guests mentioned that liberals like works about “flawed people.” If this is so, they will certainly appreciate Barack Obama’s just published children’s book, Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters.

Much like Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If” (which the author wrote for his 12-year-old son), Obama’s book was penned for his children Malia and Sasha — hence the subtitle A Letter to My Daughters. Unlike Kipling’s poem, however, I very much doubt his kids will be the better for reading it.

The book features 13 American “heroes” whose traits the president sees in his daughters. And it does include traditional figures such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein (I guess a bone had to be thrown to the dead-white-male set) and Neil Armstrong. Yet it also includes the troubled jazz great Billie Holiday; artist Georgia O’Keefe, who sometimes posed nude for photographs; and socialist Jane Addams, who, quite fittingly, was a community organizer.

Read the rest here.

Posted in , , ,

5 responses to “Saul Alinsky Meets Dr. Seuss: Obama Pens Children’s Book”

  1. Robert Berger Avatar
    Robert Berger

    Selywn,you’re just setting up the same old strawmen here. Gosh,are you getting boring. Conservatives today will accuse any one who has even the slightest disagreement with current conservative dogma of being a “socialist”,Marxist and communist,none of which Obama is.
    Even me, a pretty moderate guy who has never been a supporter of any of these left-wing dogmas. I’m just pro-choice,pro gay rights,pro separation of church and state,pro reasonable gun control,government support for the arts,anti-theocracy but but not anti-religion,
    against government censorship or invasion of people’s bedrooms,against destroying the safety net for the unfortunate, all perfectly reasonable non-fanatic views.
    That doesn’t make me a wild-eyed,fire-breathing communist and Marxist,and neither does it make Obama these.
    But Selwyn,people like you are wild-eyed right-wing fanatics. You want the government to force women to bear children they would never be able to support and don’t give a you-know-what about what happens to children after they are born,you think you have the right to go around prying into the bedrooms of gay people and judging them and denying them rights,
    claim to want religious freedom but want much too much power for religion in government, you are appallingly puritanical and prudish about sexual matters, and want to deny others the right to read and view books,magazines,films and television programs you find sexually offensive, etc.
    This isn’t conservatism;it’s right-wing extremist fascism.

    Like

    Reply
  2. A high school student Avatar
    A high school student

    First thing off Mr.Berger, you are dead wrong to think that Obama is not a socialist, all of the legislation that he approved and passed is based on socialist thought. One good example is gun control. I can understand that guns frighten you, but did you know that registered people with a concealed weapons license have a clean criminal record? Also that guns protect home invasion and help with animal population regulation (deer specifically)? Left wing people, including Obama, want to ban firearms for the sake of safety. This does not make any sense. Before you explode on me for that statement let me explain first. If civilians were denied of owning firearms who would have the weapons? The answer is criminals and policemen. Now you would say that policemen can regulate and control crime to prevent criminals from using them. Is this likely though? No it is not, there are way too many criminals than there are cops.
    This and other laws that allow the government to have more regulation is on the socialist side of the political system. I am not saying this from a biased stand point, it is a fact. So if Obama or other people advocate this and other similar laws that increase government control over day to day processes, then they are very likely to be socialist themselves. You know that old saying,”you are what you eat”? Well I think that can carry over to, “you are what you advocate”. In a nutshell, if you advocate socialist thought, you are probably socialist.
    Oh and one more thing Mr. Burger, you are a maniac. You say,”[y]ou want the government to force women to bear children they would never be able to support”. Are you saying that it is ethically okay to abort or (a more accurate term) euthanize the baby? What you are approving of is killing innocent children simply because the mother cannot take care of it. Excuse me, but there are adoption agencies for said children. There are many parents that cannot physically have children and would be glad to have a child that a mother decided not to abort. You say that Mr.Duke is,”[denying] others the right to read and view books,magazines,films and television programs [he finds] find sexually offensive, etc.” So you justify taking the right from the child to be born and the right (given in the constitution and is an “inalienable” right) to bear arms, because YOU find it offensive. That isn’t being a “pretty moderate guy”: It’s left-wing socialism.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Shaun Avatar
    Shaun

    HSS,
    Good luck attempting to reason with Mr. Berger. People have called him out for at least a year , probably longer. He spits out the same line over and over again. Great job with the post BTW. You have a healthy fire lit within your soul, dont let it die out.
    BTW Robert- What exactly is ‘reasonable’ gun control. I just love that line. Ill translate: Basically it says that I [insert name here], will surrender all ability to protect myself because some POS politician or spineless pannywaist thinks I should.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Robert Berger Avatar
    Robert Berger

    I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. But it’s just too easy for the wrong people,such as paranoid psychotics, to just walk in to any gun store and purchase a lot of weapons,and causing events like the tragic massacre at Virginia Tech.
    But gun nuts are always making it sound as though there’s some sinister communist plot to have the government invade people’s homes to confiscate their guns.That’s a crock. It’s nothing but conservative scare tactics.
    And it’s not realistic to expect all unwanted children to be adopted,and trying to force all pregnant women to bear children against their will is just plain wrong. This is totally unfeasable.
    The only way to do something about the abortion problem is to make sure that fewer unwanted pregnancies happen,which is more easily said than done,and to see to it that poor pregnant women get more help to provide for their children,born or unborn.
    Just making abortion illegal will only cause a marked increase in the number of abortions. It won’t stop abortion but just make it more dangerous.
    More and more women will die from botched illegal abortions,more children will be left without mothers,and more families devastated. This will only make a bad situation far worse.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Shaun Avatar
    Shaun

    Robert,let me start by saying that you are dead wrong in believing there is not a movement to remove private gun ownership. Fortunately, the lawmakers who would formulate this type of legislation are too few in number to effectively do so. That and the culture of the country is still too pro gun for that to happen openly…What you are going to see is a future crisis followed by martial law and mandatory gun confiscation….cant happen you say?? Katrina was a perfect trial run. If you would like to hear a stronger, more detailed case, let me know.
    As far as abortion. Again, Im going to hit a point which you openly and admittedly dodge, principle. The anti-abortion movement is more about believing a child’s life to be sacred. Period. End of story. If nothing else, you then deal with all the problems that follow, but you don’t surrender your moral fiber by saying “Well it’s going to happen anyway, so why try?” Will illegal abortions still happen? Yes. Will some children grow up in desperate poverty? Yes. Will we stand by a conviction that values life? Yes. Robert, the hypothetical question always exists. If we kill our unborn to make life easier, why can’t we kill the retarded, disabled, felons..etc? What principle would you hold up and claim to represent? You have a very skewed way of viewing moral issues. You beg for the gray to make life easier.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Shaun Cancel reply