Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for January, 2009


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 31, 2009

There’s more?

If this country had a dollar for every “new” financial plan President Obama has proposed, we’d be talking about the national debt in the past tense. The latest and greatest messianic initiative, announced today by the President, will somehow lower American mortgage costs and get America’s credit juices flowing again, blah, blah, blah.

There is, however, one little problem with it.

It doesn’t exist yet.

There was no actual plan released today … just a plan to announce the official plan sometime soon.

At least that’s the plan.

Said the President in today’s weekly radio address:

Soon my Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will announce a new strategy for reviving our financial system that gets credit flowing to businesses and families. We’ll help lower mortgage costs and extend loans to small businesses so they can create jobs.

There is no official timetable for the plan’s release, but according to a Reuters story, “His chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said on Friday that the White House would hold meetings next week about financial industry regulation.”

Who’d have guessed. More government intrusion.

The President also made this remarkable statement:

“Americans know that our economic recovery will take years — not months, but they will have little patience if we allow politics to get in the way of action, and our economy continues to slide.”

That the recovery will take time is no surprise to anyone. That it will take longer – far longer than it needs to – because of government meddling is something nugatory to Obamacrats across the board.

But to possess the chutzpah to suggest that his administration is not going to allow politics to get in the way of action is like saying the United States is committed to winning the War on Terror, as long as we don’t make the enemy too mad and  don’t use too many guns and bombs and stuff (because they’re destructive).

Who exactly is the President kidding?

Was it not President Obama who said “I Won” as a response to Republican Jon Kyl who questioned the contents of the Obama-Nation Abomination stimulus package?

Was it not Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who said “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.”

And exactly how is telling American citizens that they need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh a non-partisan act?

Just asking.

And as long as I’m there, what, pray tell, is this rabid obsession with doing away with partisanship? (Perhaps the better question is: Am I surprised that Democrats want to do away with anti-Obama dissention?) Why exactly is standing up for core principals a negative thing? When, on matters of finance, foreign policy and social programs has “divisiveness” not existed? Why is it so difficult for Dems to admit that they, like their Republican counterparts, politicize?

So what?

I expect nothing less from politicians.

Remember, that when anyone, on any side of the aisle, speaks of fostering unity, it simply means that they wish for everyone to think as they do.

Again, so what?

I am a firm, unabashed conservative. I’d love it if more people thought as I do. I admit it.

Being one doesn’t render me – or anyone else – incapable of thinking clearly or ascertaining the “other side” of any argument. 

To the contrary, conservatives in America are bombarded constantly with liberal positions and viewpoints far more than liberals are made to face and confront conservative positions. We are exposed to far more liberal ideas and concepts on an everyday basis then the other way around. Indeed, it is almost reflexive – inborn, if you will – for today’s conservative to have to develop the ability to define and debate their positions on demand. Liberals, after all, believe their positions are in the American mainstream. 


As soon as conservatives get any kind of foothold in academia, motion pictures, popular music, television, newspapers and advertising, drop me a line. We’ll talk about it.

wordpress statistics


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 30, 2009

The New York Post’s front page headline on Friday read: “OBAMA TO WALL STREET… BUCK OFF! – Says $18B bonuses ‘shameful’

Yesterday, the President, in no uncertain terms,  blasted  Wall Street corporations who continued to hand out bonuses to executives in the midst of a deepening recession. He called it “shameful” and the “height of irresponsibility.”

Excuse me, Mr. President, please accept this in the spirit is in intended. With all due respect, why don’t you BUCK OFF? And how about doing so eight-hundred nineteen billion times?

If the pot and kettle get any more friendly under your administration, sir, they’re going to have to start going steady.

How is it, Mr. President, that you have the audacity to lambaste Wall Street “fat cats” for doling out billions of dollars worth of bonuses when your spending bill, dressed in stimulus drag, is the most – repeat the most – irresponsible example of government spending in this nation’s history?

There is no doubt now that I exist in an alternate reality.

The President quite literally said, “There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.”

Is he out of his ever-loving mind? These words were spoken by a President of the United States??

I ask him … When exactly, sir, is the best time to make profits if not during an economic slowdown? When you say it is okay?

Whether or not it is a good idea from a public relations or public image standpoint for corporations to hand out bonuses to their employees in the midst of a recession is a separate issue. If the public is particularly outraged at Citigroup for their planned purchase of a $50 million jet, for example, let them show it by refusing to do business with them. Let the market work.

In fact, if an executive chooses to voluntarily refuse his or her bonus, or if a company elects to retract one, I’m all for it. More power to them.

According the New York Post:

Obama’s no-nonsense message was applauded by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who said he began reviewing bonuses last September.

“No longer will this country stand for wasteful spending of tax dollars on bonuses for executives whose companies have taken huge losses and required taxpayer bailouts,” Cuomo said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee, vowed at a Capitol press conference to seek a return of the bonuses.

“I’m going to be urging – in fact, not urging, demanding – that the Treasury Department figures out some way to get the money back,” Dodd said. “This is unacceptable.”

The pot and kettle have almost certainly consummated their relationship by now.

Wasteful spending, Gracie?

Throwing taxpayer dollars at the National Endowment of the Arts, paying for programs that teach teens all about sexually transmitted diseases, funding NASA to “study” climate change, channeling money into supporting renewable energy projects, spending “stimulus” cash to pretty up the Washington Mall and maintain national park bathrooms (and other public buildings) doesn’t have even a tinge of wastefulness to it?

Recall that on January 7, 2009, newspapers everywhere carried headlines such as this one in the New York Post: OBAMA BANS STIMULUS-PACKAGE PORK:

Take this pork and shove it!

President-elect Barack Obama warned Capitol Hill lawmakers yesterday that he will bar all pork-barrel projects from the massive economic-stimulus package he is asking them to pass.

The proposed plan, which Obama says will cost around $775 billion, will not allow lawmakers to insert pet projects, as they often do on spending bills.

There were no last minute insertions, true to the President’s word. The pig meat in this abomination of Obama-Nation was all prepared ahead of time.

And as far as Mr. Dodd is concerned, how seriously can he be taken since his embarrassing misdiagnosis of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

What is “unacceptable” is the idea that Chris Dodd is even in a position to make such a ludicrous demand of the Treasury Department.

More ludicrous is the fact that there are one thousand, four hundred fifty days left – at least – of this.

The President’s first eleven days have been a joy thus far.

wordpress statistics



Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 30, 2009

Seventeen years ago today, my twin daighters were born.

It was one of the most magical moments of all my life.

It has been a remarkable ride, I must say – through the ups and downs, the good and the bad – and I wouldn’t change it for all the riches in the world or even another day that I might draw breath.

They have enriched my life beyond words and I thank my wife for giving me such good people to call “my girls.”

May they live long, happy, healthy, good lives.

Daddy loves you.

Posted in Personal | Tagged: | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 30, 2009

yes we canThe only thing I might have done differently during President Obama’s campaign drive for the White House is expand the campaign slogan to include three additional words: “…Screw Up America.”

They’re ahead of schedule.

Change has, indeed, descended upon Washington – just like the new President of the United States promised. In that sense, he has been true to his word. Otherwise, with all due respect, the President – only ten days into his “Yes We Can” makeover of the country – has lied to the United States.

I assure you, I do not use that word lightly. This is not “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker twaddle. (More on this in a moment).

If George W. Bush’s anti-conservative approach to spending could be characterized as a nagging cough, Barack Obama’s spendulous plan is Stage Three Pancreatic Cancer.

And now, as Charles Hurt’s Inside Washington column explains, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is about to rest in pieces – blown apart by this Obamacratic spending disaster.

Deep within the language of the spending bill – on Page 354, Section 2101 – is an interesting choice of phrasing – five little words, as Mr. Hurt points out – that “could drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms.”

Those words?

Such sums as are necessary” … as in: “Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund.

In short, from the Treasury, there will be unlimited money available to the “Emergency Fund.”

The “Emergency Fund” is the well from which welfare payments are distributed to the states.

I’ve got to hand it the President. That is what you call change.

As Mr. Hurt writes:

The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.

But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new “stimulus” bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.

“This re-establishes the welfare state and creates dependency all over the place,” said one startled budget analyst after reading the line.

In addition to reopening the floodgates of dependency on federal welfare programs, the change once again deepens the dependency of state governments on the federal government.

President Obama won on promises of changing the way Washington works.

Which brings me to my charge – and a serious one – about the President lying.

Back on January 6th, a full two-weeks before he took a botched Oath of Office – when he was still Secretary of the Office of President-Elect – Obama told reporters that his recovery plan and stimulus package would set a “new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review. We’re not having earmarks in the recovery package. Period.”

That, my fellow Americans, is a bold-face, empirically provable, substantively verifiable lie.

An earmark is not defined by the process by which individual pet projects are inserted into a spending bill. (Clever attempt there, Bam). It is, rather, defined as the provision itself that “directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.” The process of creating this catostrophically bloated spending bill may have been void of individual insertions, as Obama alluded to, but by any measure it is loaded – by definition – with earmarks.

At the great “Indy Mind” website, Arkady writes:

Only if you were to consider billions of dollars going to non-profit groups like ACORN, hundreds of millions to buy new government vehicles, millions for global warming research, millions for digital tv conversion subsidies, billions to upgrade federal buildings, millions for clearing out water pollution and a slew of other items as NON-pork. Technically speaking individual members did not insert projects without review, so yeah, I guess there are no earmarks.

How exactly does sending out analogue-to-digital TV converters stimulate anything?

President Bush was raked over the coals – and rightly so – for his reckless spending. Now it makes more sense why Obama wants to do away with coal.

So, yes … change is in the air. Without question, the differences between this administration and the previous one are glaring – just as Obama said it would be.

Obama is different from Bush.

For one, Obama is a liar.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 30, 2009

From the “Doing The Right Thing” file …

It is essential to reward good behavior – whether it is patting the 188 House Republicans on the back for standing united against the Obama stimulus debacle, or giving junior an extra slice of pie for cleaning up his room without having to be told.

In that spirit, I’d like to take a huge “Attaboy” out of petty cash and commend the Ford Motor Company for not cuddling up to the government bosom for bailout money as did Chrysler and General Motors, despite posting a nearly $15 billion loss in 2008.

That’s $15 billion.

Good for you, Ford.

At Evil Conservative Radio, it is summed up this way:

I’ve never been a big Ford guy. In fact, I come from a Chevy family. But no longer. Here’s hoping that Ford can right the ship without the government’s “help,” and here’s hoping I have the scratch to buy a Ford sometime this year. It’s going to be a challenge for them, competing against the US Govt Auto Division (GM and Chrysler), and I’d like to show solidarity. I’d encourage anyone shopping for a car to do the same.

My sentiments exactly.

Others have said it more articulately than I have, but the bottom line is … while no one wants to see American companies fail – and I do hope Ford will survive the current recession – it is necessary for businesses to fail in a free market, if they cannot compete. Regardless of how beloved, well-known or etched into the American fabric a corporation may be, if the market has determined that it must die, then so be it.

It is American ingenuity – not government  – that fuels success.


Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2009

This is not an indictment on President Obama’s inability to open a window he thought was a door. After all, he’s only been at his new place of residence for nine days now. It takes a while to memorize where all the handles are. I empathize with the new Commander-In-Chief.

The whole thing is actually quite amusing in a “Messiahs-Are-People-Too” kind of way.

I would rather focus on how the media is portraying this – if they are at all – and compare it to George W. Bush’s now infamous incident of pulling on a locked door when attempting to exit a press conference in China in November, 2005.

he can "handle" it

he can "handle" it

Headlines such as this one from the BBC appeared all over the place: “Door Thwarts Quick Exit For Bush.”

The Washington Post said: “For Bush in Beijing, It’s Hard to Get Out.”

In Sydney, Australia, the Morning Herald headline read: “One door closes, another opens for Bush.”

Hey, no complaints here. Wordplay, puns and jokes are all fair game.

Bloggers, too, had a field day, as you might expect – although sentiments weren’t quite as measured. One particularly articulate keyboard tapper at at the time posted:

“I saw the funniest report on President Bush on the news in my part of the world. He was attending some boring press conference in China and decided he wanted to end things. George went to the doors and tried to open them, NOT REALIZING THEY WERE LOCKED. HA HA! The idiot had to be shown where the correct exit was! I was laughing my ass off! This dufus is the leader of the free world? God help us all!”

The endless chides about Bush needing a new “exit strategy” ranged from amusing to downright cruel.

Again, no big deal.

Now, let’s see how President Obama’s re-entry gaffe is portrayed.

At the UK website, their coverage may be an indication of the kid gloves approach being applied to The One.

No puns, no bad jokes. Nothing.

In fact, a caption under one of the pictures there actually reads: “Barack Obama’s White House has a more relaxed feel.”

The headline, too, is so clinical, so literal, so antiseptic. No wordplay whatsoever:

“Barack Obama mistakes window for door at White House – Barack Obama has been photographed mistaking a window for a door as he tried to enter the White House.”

Gee, how exciting. How riveting.

Pulitzer Prize anyone?


Update: 29 January 2009 8:33 PM

A Blogger at Free called RushIsMyTeddyBear reminded me of this admittedly fake but nontheless amusing Obama pic from the campaign. If this had been George W. Bush, it would have been issued as a t-shirt/nightgown set by Move













A million thanks to Arkady for reminding me that the picture had been “photoshopped.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2009

money_treeI wish conservatism would have been shaken from its sleep when  it counted. I wish we would have seen more of it throughout 2008.

Because we didn’t, we now have a brand new reality to contend with.

Yes, Obama’s stimulus package passed the House of Representatives, but Republicans proved – finally – that they are capable of locating and listening to the little conservative voices that have been (for quite a while) bound and gagged within them. They showed the world – at least for now – that they have the capacity to take inventory of their spines and stand up for something other than the collective o-gasm that has blanketed the country since The One won.

Each and every House Republican who voted yesterday – along with eleven Democrats – voted against President Obama’s $819 Billion stimulus package – The Pork Salad Bammy Government Expansion and Spending Bonanza.

Good for them.

The final vote was 244 to 188.

Why is this so important?

Because Democrats, who easily have the numbers needed to float this bill through both houses of Congress, know that they’ll need Republican votes to help absorb some of the blame if (when) this massive spending bill hits the fan as a bona-fide failure – which it will. Obmacrats know that with bi-partisan cover, the political sting of a disastrous “stimulus” washout will be easier to take.

Why else cuddle up to and tickle toes with Republicans?

After all, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminded the world, they won and they wrote the bill. There wasn’t a damned thing “bi-partisan” about it.

Perfect. I invite them to take full responsibility for it.

Michelle Malkin writes at her blog that it was great day for conservatism.

Thank you, GOP.

It’s a sad state of affairs when I can tally the number of notably good days for the Republican Party on one hand over the past two years: the defeat of shamnesty, the (temporary) prevention of massive S-CHIP expansion, last summer’s Drill, Baby, Drill revolt on the House floor. Fortunately, the GOP held the line this evening in a remarkable, powerful way. They may have lost the vote, but they sent a lasting message. They took a stand for principle and posterity. They reclaimed their brand as the party of small government, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility. They restored their damaged credibility.

There’s no mystery in how best to rebuild the party and energize the base: Talk like conservatives. Walk like conservatives. Vote like conservatives.

Senate Republicans, take note. Don’t squander this opportunity for redemption. Make no apologies for principled obstructionism. Counter the inevitable liberal overreaching with plain facts and free-market alternatives.

That the bill passed the House is a defeat for this country. Let’s not forget that. The staggering amount of irresponsible, unnecessary, pork-barrel crap shoved into this thing is beyond disgusting. This is expressly one of those moments – and there so many of them lately – that I wanted – nay, prayed for – the President to fail.

He didn’t.

When this financial monstrosity passes the Senate – and it will – the only thing to salvage will be conservatism itself.  Anything less than a repeat of what Republicans did in the House will be unacceptable.

Can there be any doubt that given the situation, with Democrats in full control of everything, that the best thing Republicans can do is allow the entire weight of this spending frenzy to rest on the shoulders of the Savior and his minions?

Players must play the hand they’re dealt, and even with a guaranteed losing hand in this particular game, this is still the Republicans’ power play.

Make it count.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2009

The Chicago White Sox are feeling the love of the Obama-Nation. Despite the fact that a sizeable portion of their fan base did not vote for the current President, the team is planning on celebrating the election of their new “hometown” hero with an Obama-themed cap that could be ready by the start of spring training next month.

Brooks Boyer, the team’s vice president and chief marketing officer, commented:

“We’re very excited. This is somebody who’s obviously a White Sox fan, but more importantly, really embraces and embodies the attributes of our brand: the notions of pride, passion and tradition we rally around. He’s made it hip to be a White Sox fan.”

If Mr. Boyer is referring to a tradition of failed big-government entitlement programs, he may be on to something. If the tradition Mr. Boyer talks about is liberal class warfare, then the promotion could be a very successful one. If by “traditional” the White Sox vice president means more intrusion of government into the lives of Americans, well golly gee, break out the peanuts and beer, they’ve got a winner.

The hats have been approved by MLB Properties, and the White Sox now are awaiting a formal blessing from the Obama administration before league licensee New Era goes into production.

I assure you, I’m not saying the team shouldn’t be able to do this, if that’s what they choose. I’m a free market guy, and if they can generate revenue this way, more power to them.

My point, rather, is to illustrate yet another example of the continuing mania that surrounds this man.

Tom Fox, former Gatorade and Wasserman Media Group executive said:

“There’s a tremendous amount of good will around this guy right now, regardless of political affiliation. As time goes on, and his positions in office become more defined, you do run some risk of this becoming more of a polarizing thing, but not in the short run.”

white soxHe’s kidding, right?

How much more “defined” does the proposal of an astronomically expensive “stimulus” bill package that includes $5.1 billion for “Community Development,” $5 billion for “Public Housing,” $13 billion for the “Education for the Disadvantaged,” and $600 million for “Energy Efficient Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Procurement” have to be? (How in hell do any of these things stimulate a sputtering economy?)

How much more “defined” does the closing of our detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for no other reason than to appease his voting base have to be?

How much more “defined” does wanting to redistribute the money of the wealthiest Americans to those who have neither earned it nor deserve it have to be?

How much more “defined” does saying that the only answer to this country’s economic woes is government, as he did on January 9, 2009, have to be?

How much more “defined” does telling Americans not to listen to Rush Limbaugh have to be?

These are not political acts?

What exactly will President Obama have to do that he hasn’t already to convince the Chicago White Sox – or anyone for that matter – that Obama’s political beliefs are defined?

After all, according to Fox, the time to strike the iron is now before Obama gets too political.


Meanwhile, here in Brooklyn, as I wrote about a few days ago, the Brooklyn Cyclones minor league baseball squad is celebrating the election of Barack Obama by renaming their team, for one day, the Baracklyn Cyclones.

In other news, Barack Obama reportedly has said that if his name weren’t Obama, he’d change his name to Obama.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2009

As the Earth spirals violently to its demise as a result of irreversible man-made Global Warming, snow storms have taken the lives of at least nineteen people and have left nearly a million without electricity across the country. Meanwhile, Al Gore is braving the wintry mess to tell Congress that the current financial crisis should not draw attention – or funding – away from the fight against Global Warming.

There is no better example of irony – or idiocy – available.

From Fox

A destructive winter storm that has left more than 800,000 customers in the dark barreled into the Northeast on Wednesday, delaying flights and turning the morning rush into the morning slush as communities braced for the worst.

The storm has been blamed for at least 20 deaths and a glaze of ice and snow caused widespread power failures from the Southern Plains to the East Coast. Authorities said it could be a week before some communities have electricity again.

Tree limbs encased in ice tumbled onto roads and crashed onto power lines in hard-hit Arkansas, Kentucky and Oklahoma on Tuesday and overnight. In Arkansas — where ice was 3 inches thick in some places — people huddled next to portable heaters and wood-burning fires as utilities warned electricity may be out for a week or more.

Recall that the effects of Global Warming have been officially declared “largely irreversible” by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

wordpress statistics


Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2009

rush limbaughIf you think for one moment that Democrats did not want George W. Bush to fail, then I have an East River bridge I’m dying to get off my hands that I’m willing to sell for cheap. When President Bush tried to reform the nation’s largest Ponzi scheme – Social Security – I defy anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that Democrats did not want that initiative to fail.

When President Bush proposed his across-the-board tax cuts, is there anyone who believes that Democrats did not want that policy to go belly up as well?

Name me the Democrats who came forth and said, “Well, we didn’t want these tax cut passed, but now that they’re law, let’s all hope it turns out to be a good move for all the American people.”

It did not happen.

Democrats wanted the Bush tax cuts to fail.

In fact, as shocking as this revelation apparently is to Democrats, it is the nature of politics.

When disagreements on political positions exist, one side wishes the other side’s policies to fail.

It’s the way it is.

(Do I also need to explain that water is wet?)

Why is this concept only now twisting the panties of the whiny ones? Is it because the precious Messiah has ascended to the Mount and all of us be damned who oppose him?

The fact is … when proposed Democrat policies run contrary to those beliefs held by the opposing party, how can Republican not want them to fail?

How hilarious is it that Democrats – the party of tolerance – are now outraged that talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has called for Barack Obama’s initiatives to fail.

So what?

(They ought to read my column from yesterday, “The Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure.”)

Let’s put this in perspective …

Did Candidate Barack Obama want Candidate John McCain to fail in his bid for the White House?


Would President Barack Obama want any initiative that would lead to the overturning of Roe v Wade to fail?

Of course we would. He’s said so.

If Republicans call for an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as being between only one man and one woman, are there not a whole host of Democrats (and some Republicans) who would want that proposal to fall through?


So what are we talking about here?

Why on earth would I – or any other conservative – want to see Obama’s plans succeed?

I guess it doesn’t matter, because Democrats have launched a petition. (Of course, they have).

And guess who they’re attacking … again?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to express outrage at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to “fail.”

“Jobs, health care, our place in the world — the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed,” the petition reads. “Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s Attacks — sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama.”

The petition comes after Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill Friday that they need to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

A petition?

Hold me.

Where were the petitions when non-talk show hosts like Senator Ted Kennedy declared the rape-rooms and torture cells of Abu Ghraib opened under new management? Or when Senator Harry Reid called President Bush a “loser?” Or when Senator Dick Durbin compared US troops to Nazis?

There are times when I am convinced I have slipped through the space and time continuum into an alternate reality, and others when I simply realize that Democrats are in power .

Posted in Conservatism, Obama's first 100 days, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2009

PetaAs many of us learned from the 1978 comedy classic Animal House, vegetables can be very sensual (while people are sensuous). However, the magical combination of gorgeous girls and fresh vegetables is not getting a whole heck of a lot of love from NBC – the network broadcasting Super Bowl XLIII on Sunday. In fact, they have said no to a :30 second ad from – of all places – PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals).

The organization known for (among other things) the “Holocaust On Your Plate” campaign and the push to rename fish “sea kittens” is being told by NBC that cuts are going to have to be made to the controversial spot before it is allowed to hit the air during the game between the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

From PETA’s website:

Apparently, NBC has something against girls who love their veggies. After we submitted our proposed Super Bowl ad, which features a comely crop of models demonstrating their fondness for fresh produce, NBC nixed the ad, saying it “depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards.” No joke, this is straight from NBC—so stop fondling your fruit salad right now and read the list of shots NBC requested we cut before they’d reconsider:

     -licking pumpkin

     -touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli

     -pumpkin from behind between legs

     -rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin

     -screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)

     -asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina

     -licking eggplant

     -rubbing asparagus on breast

Wow, that list even made us blush! You can read the full NSFW letter from NBC here and then watch the video out to see what the controversy is all about.

Edited into the succession of quick cuts featuring beautiful women thoroughly enjoying their vegetables, flashes the claim that “Studies show that vegetarians have better sex.”

Assuming they’re talking about eating the vegetables, I’d be interested in how those studies were conducted.

Just curious.

Anyway, PETA goes on to say – and I’m not making this up:

Why so grouchy NBC? Sounds like someone’s not getting enough um … vegetables. I’m thinking network execs could really benefit from a broccoli booty call.

That link takes you to a website called

It’s fairly self-explanatory.


In other news, I have a couple of additional names to add to the PETA “renaming” campaign.

As I alluded to earlier, they’re already calling fish “sea kittens” in an attempt to make them less desirable to “kill and grill” (as Ted Nugent might say). After all, who wants to ram a hook through a kitten, right?

In my never-ending attempt to lend assistance to those wackos in desparate need, I submit that cows be renamed “cud puppies” and that pigs be called “mud bunnies.”

Anything I can do to help.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, PETA, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2009

melting earthA couple of weeks ago, “six to eight” inches of snow were forecast to fall in and around the New York City area. Every station in town began their “team coverage” from salt truck stations all over the Tri-State area well in advance of the storm’s arrival.

The forecast remained fairly steady in the hours leading up to the “event.”

Then, about seven hours before the storm was supposed to hit, the predicted time of the storm’s arrival was pushed back by about eleven hours. On top of that, snowfall totals were amended to “one to three” inches due to slight shifts in the weather models.

By the time it was all said and done, an inch – at best – fell here in Brooklyn.

It happens.

I have also done some research, looking to find reports from meteorological professionals (other than Al Gore, Jr.) dating back to last winter and spring predicting a “colder-than-normal” season this winter (in some places, a record cold winter). Unfortunately, I didn’t find too many, save for the few who wrote “Global Warming is Causing Global Cooling” end-of-life-as-we-know-it doomsday pieces. I did, however, find thousands – literally thousands – of articles about the planet’s impending demise due to man-man climate changes.

This is not a slam piece against weather forecasters. I actually admire the profession very much. That isn’t my point.

With unpredictability not uncommon in short-term weather forecasting, and with computer models seemingly yielding more and more inaccuracies – some would say more than just sometimes – it is stunning with how much certitude experts can predict the calamity awaiting mankind due to so-called Global Warming.

And with more winter storms scheduled to hit the American Northeast over the next day or so – and temperatures in Fairbanks, Alaska hovering around two degrees – comes the announcement that the effects of Global Warming are irreversible.


From Yahoo News:

Climate change is “largely irreversible” for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study’s authors said there was “no going back” after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are “largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped.”

NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to “irreversibly change the planet.”

Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million.

The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions.

For the next thousand years?

How they know with such confidence that the “irreversible” effects won’t linger for, say, only three hundred years, or five hundred years, is remarkable.

One question … Can I get just one study that proves CO2 levels trigger temperature fluctuations, and not the other way around? Just one? (Okay, that was two).

My guarantee … as more and more people realize that climate conditions fluctuate in spite of human activity, and that the human beings cannot be blamed for altering the weather, these people won’t give a rat’s tush what the temperature is.

That’s because it was never about the Earth.

In other news, it’s cold.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2009

quill1. If President Barack Obama is resolute on reversing Bush administration measures that have served to keep this country safe from attack for over seven years, I want him to fail.

2. If the President believes that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are due the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, I want him to fail.

3. If the President believes that “direct diplomacy” with despotic leaders of murderous regimes is the best way to keep America strong, I want him to fail.

4. If the President is willing to trod upon one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence – namely, the right to life – with his illimitable support of abortion, I want him to fail.

5. If the President believes that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions, I want him to fail.

6. If the President wishes to use taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, I want him to fail.

7. If the President wishes to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who view the Constitution as a document that breathes and bends with time, I want him to fail.

8. If the President wants to infringe on my Constitutional right as a law abiding American to own a firearm, I want him to fail.

9. If the President believes that government is better equipped to solve the problems of Americans than Americans themselves, I want him to fail.

10. If the President attempts to follow through on his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I want him to fail.

11. If the President wishes to send me a check that I didn’t earn, paid for with other people’s hard-earned tax money, and call it a tax cut, I want him to fail.

12. If the President wishes to send a so-called stimulus check to those who did not pay federal income taxes, I want him to fail.

13. If the President believes that government bailouts of private sector businesses are the way to tend to an ailing economy, I want him to fail.

14. If the President believes that the government should set pay limits on executives of companies who receive bailout money, I want him to fail.

15. If the President believes that government spending of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money is the way to deliver the economy from recession, I want him to fail.

16. If the President believes that the planet is in danger of catostrophic ruin due to man-made global warming, and is willing to implement so-called “green” policies that will damage this country’s economy, I want him to fail.

17. If the President wishes to undertake an unparalleled “domestic infrastructure” plan that puts untrained non-professionals on the government’s payroll with the belief that this will stimulate the economy, I want him to fail.

18. If the President believes that people who fall into the highest tax brackets in this country need to pay more taxes, I want him to fail.

19. If the President believes that the military of the United States is a venue for social engineering – such as lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – I want him to fail.

20. If the President believes that healthcare is not only a right but a moral obligation of government, I want him to fail.

21. If the President believes that it is a good idea to attack those who listen to conservative talk radio as a means of fostering unity, I want him to fail.

22. If the President supports a reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, effectively ending talk radio as we know it, I want him to fail.

23. If the President is unwilling to boldly deal with illegal immigration into the United States, and chooses to try and come up with something “comprehensive” to solve the problem, I want him to fail.

24. If the President is unwilling to take a serious look at nuclear energy as a viable and safe alternative source of energy, while wasting time focusing on wind turbines and solar paneling, I want him to fail.

25. If the President decides that he will continue his class-warfare style assault on big corporations – such as oil and pharmaceutical companies – as he did during his campaign by punishing them with higher tax rates, I want him to fail.


Not because he is black. Not because he is a liberal. Not because I seek some sort of vengance on the deranged, lunatic Bush-bashers of the past eight years.

I want him to fail because each and every one of these policies hurts my country.



There are more to be added, I’m certain.

This particular list is a breathing document.

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2009

Mrs. ObamaIt’s going to be a long four years. The first six days have lasted about that long already.

I’ve shaken my head so many times since last Tuesday, I’m getting threatening mail from my cerebrum. Coupled with the already lib-heavy tone set forth by The One over the first week of his reign will apparently be the obligatory need to inject race into every nook and cranny of the Obama experience. It’s already been a great big melanin-level lovefest in less than a week of Obama-Nation – from the Reverend Joseph Lowery’s rainbow-flavored mumblings to the economic mighty-mo Robert Reich’s condemnation of caucasian show-offs – and it just keeps getting better.

Now, the First lady is being criticized by the Black Artists Association for not choosing an inaugural outfit designed by African-American designers.

How she will be distinguished from the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong come the Judgement Day is unclear.

From The Politico:

FLOTUS’s inaugural outfits sent designers to their drafting tables to design knockoffs and droves went to J.Crew to get those snazzy leather green gloves. But not everyone is happy with her choices. The Black Artists Association is chiding FLOTUS for not choosing any African-American designers.

They will send a letter to FLOTUS’s office and appeal to her to include items from black designers in her wardrobe. BAA Cofounder Amnau Eele, who was a former runway model told Women’s Wear Daily:

“It’s fine and good if you want to be all ‘Kumbaya’ and ‘We Are the World’ by representing all different countries. But if you are going to have Isabel Toledo do the inauguration dress, and Jason Wu do the evening gown, why not have Kevan Hall, B Michael, Stephen Burrows or any of the other black designers do something too?”

Wu didn’t find out Michelle O. was wearing his dress until he saw her on television Tuesday night. And aides said FLOTUS didn’t even decide until hours before her big night.

Taskforces are being created and put to work to assess the feasibility of making sure that from now on, everything the First Family touches, tastes, smells, looks at, thinks about, puts on, dreams of, steps in, coughs up, brushes up against and stumbles upon has, in some way, been associated with, created by, located near or mentioned in the presence of any African-American in some capacity.

Welcome to the Obama-Nation.

Leading the way to a race-blind society …


Update: January 26, 2009 – 8:22 PM

Special message directed to my lib readers…

I am not posting your expletive-filled, childish, ass-clown responses. Try composing without sounding like George Clooney.

I was not comparing Michelle Obama to despotic disctators of the past. That I have to explain that just to keep idiotic responses from filling my “inbox” says it all. 


wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2009

presidential sealLet’s pretend.

If the murderous bloodshed of September 11, 2001 had taken place while Barack Obama were President of the United States, and his reaction and subsequent retaliation had followed precisely the path that George W. Bush had taken, undoubtedly he would not only have been branded the greatest wartime commander in the history of all humankind by the mainstream media, but he would have garnered my support without a scintilla of equivocation.

If, however, under the same scenario, with the rubble in lower Manhattan still smoldering, President Obama would have called for an immediate summit of Muslim leaders (and a task force or two to boot) to figure out not only why such a “tragedy” occurred, but exactly what the United States would need to change in its foreign policy to keep the peace, I would have said – adamantly and ferociously – that I did not support the President.

Therefore, using this example, I submit that to claim support for the President without supporting his policies is exactly the same as saying that one supports the troops without supporting the war. It is a nonsensical statement. It is not possible.

It is very common, for instance, to hear someone say they support the war effort in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Although that is not my position, one is certainly entitled to feel that way. If that is, indeed, the case, then it is intellectually dishonest to say that someone who takes that position supports the troops in Iraq.

They don’t.

(More on that in a moment).

Certainly, there may be isolated instances where one may support a given policy of an otherwise opposed President, but the premise remains unchanged.

I have the highest regard for the office of the President of the United States. I therefore afford the person in the White House the respect he or she is due as the nation’s Chief Executive. It goes without saying – or it should – that I wish no harm ever to befall the President of my country.

With equal sentiment, I want only success, prosperity and peace for the United States and its citizens. I want the traditions and institutions that have made this nation the greatest the world has ever known to be protected, fostered and passed on from generation to generation. I want the spirit of individualism and liberty that defines American exceptionalism to continue to be revered, cherished and championed. I want the United States to continue to have the courage to define that which is evil and the fortitude to fight it when necessary.

If the President of the United States cannot meet those challenges, then I cannot – nay, I will not – support him.


I know this is a baffling concept to Leftocrats.

And as sad as it is to say, it is as confusing a notion to many pundits on the right who are now regularly saying, “I support the President even though I don’t agree with his policies.”

It makes no sense. What exactly does that mean?

If by “support,” one means hoping for the continued safety of the President, then by all means, call me a “supporter.” But if to support him, I am required to pretend that policies he enacts will be good for my country when I believe with every molecule of my existence they will not, I am no supporter.

Call it being part of the “loyal opposition,” if you like.

Assuming I am not speaking of the President’s personal life – which I am not – where else but in what the Chief Executive actually does while in office would I rightly be able to offer my support, or lack of it? What else but a policy decision or action on the part of the President warrants either my backing or disapproval? Indeed, it is a given that I only wish the best for his children and the success of his marriage (unlike Bush-bashers who regularly wished for the worst to befall Bush), but that is irrelevant to the question of supporting him. I have no vested interest in his personal life. All Americans, however, are potentially affected by what he does in his capacity as President.

In short, I do not support policies I believe will be harmful or antithetical to the success and well-being of this nation. Thus, I do not support a President that pushes for those policies.

It is perfectly all right, in my estimation, to weigh all of a President’s decisions, no matter who it is, and decide on balance if you support him or not.

“I was generally a supporter of George W. Bush, but his willingness to go along with the “bailout” bugged me. I didn’t support that.”

Which brings me to the hackneyed and hollow claim that it is possible to support the troops while not supporting the war.

How exactly?

US armed forcesThe men and women of the United States Armed Forces have volunteered to serve. Their purpose is to win. Certainly, it shouldn’t be problematic for even the most sniveling anti-war types to grasp the idea that given the choice between winning and losing – which, incidentally, in the real world are the only choices – winning is always better than losing.

Yet, ask any peacenik if he or she wants the United States to win in the battle against Islamo-fascists. You’ll be peppered with typical campus-cackle about how we shouldn’t have even been in Iraq in the first place, blah, blah, blah … which is as useful and constructive as applying scotch tape to a compound fracture.

Ultimately, the answer will be “no,” for a whole host of incomprehensible, Zinn-inspired, university-friendly rationales.

The bottom line is … to be in favor of American losses cannot be, by any measure, considered supportive.

Yet, this is precisely what the anti-war screechers advocate. They don’t support the troops because they don’t support victory over the enemy. They support surrender. How in the name of all that is holy is that supportive of those who have volunteered to defend the country?

Is it at all relevant what the troops themselves want?

Or doesn’t that part of it matter?

The troops are defined by what they do. Their courage and values compel them to selflessly serve in harm’s way. To not wish for their success on the battlefield is to not support them. Period.

Liberals need to have the “courage” to admit that.

Wishing they were not there supports the pacifist, not the soldier.

Incidentally, thus far, I do not support the President of the United States.

There, I said it.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Conservatism, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 25, 2009

but it's a park

but it's a park

The entire problem could be taken care of if Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania simply switched districts with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi – that way, Murtha’s offer to bring the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay to his district could mean the re-opening of Alcatraz (currently located in Pelosi’s district). Pelosi, however, is not exactly warm to the idea of bringing terrorists to her district, no matter who represents it – not necessarily because they are cold-blooded murdering pond scum, or because they might have to be wrongly afforded the rights of Americans – but because it is a tourist attraction … and a park, sort of.

That this “odd suggestion” is even a matter of discussion at all can be credited – at least in part – to House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, who appeared on Meet The Press Sunday. Boehner was echoing earlier suggestions that “The Rock” be used an alternative prison for the Gitmo detainees now that President Obama has signed an Executive Order closing the facility in Cuba.

From Fox News:

Republican Rep. Bill Young … suggested to White House counsel Greg Craig that the prisoners who could not be released back to their home countries or sent to a third country be put up in “the Rock,” the famous military installation and prison that closed down in 1963 and is now part of the National Park Service.

Asked whether that was a serious proposal, (Nancy) Pelosi said, “It is — no.”

“Perhaps he’s not visited Alcatraz,” Pelosi said of Young while displaying little sense of humor. “Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It’s a prison that is now sort of like a — it’s a national park.”

That explanation didn’t stop House Minority Leader John Boehner from repeating the suggestion on Sunday, making that point that closing down Guantanamo by year’s end may not be the best plan considering the recidivism rate of terrorist detainees is about 12 percent.

“If liberals believe they ought to go, maybe we ought to open Alcatraz,” Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC “Meet the Press.” Being reminded that Alcatraz is a national park, Boehner responded, “It’s very secure.”

Recall that John Murtha, who sang the praises of the decision to close Gitmo, extended an invitation to have the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay jailed in his district in Pennsylvania. Bob Layo, President of the Greater Johnstown/Cambria County Chamber of Commerce, agreed that Murtha’s suggestion was a stone cold groove, saying:

“I don’t see any downside. There has to be an added level of security for those types of prisoners, so they would probably build new facilities and add staff.”

Yeah, okay.

Here’s a fair follow-up question …

What the hell are you talking about?

Can someone – anyone -answer this simple question: If there already exists a more-than-sufficient, extremely-secure facility in which to house these extremely dangerous individuals – namely Guantanamo Bay – why on earth would anyone in their right mind think that the best thing to do is move them out?

Listen up, Dems … I’ll keep it as monosyllabic as I can … This is not Abu-Grahib.

Honestly, I do not know if the suggestion to re-open Alcatraz is a realistic one, or if it is just an attempt by Republicans to goad the majority party a bit (which is a good thing), or even a way of attempting to illustrate the absolute absurdity – and blatant irresponsibility – of closing Guantanamo Bay.

But whatever it is, I’m okay with it.

In other news, Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 25, 2009

uterusCan anything be made adorable? Can anything be made into a toy? Is there anything off-limits?

For instance, prior to 1902, when Teddy Roosevelt refused to kill a cornered American Black Bear on a hunting trip, which spawned the creation of the adorable and cuddly “teddy-bear,” what would the reaction have been if someone suggested that a loveable bedtime comfort toy for children be made in the likeness of an often ferocious wild animal?

Or what about the animated movie Ratatouille? That one particularly stands out in my mind because I live in New York City, and as one who frequents the subway tunnels here, I can assure you there is nothing – repeat nothing – appealing, attractive or even remotely charismatic about rats. Yet, the movie succeeded in making rats likable.

How about the female reproductive system?

Can a uterus be cuddly? Can fallopian tubes actually reach out and hug you?


A company called I Heart Guts has a toy called the Plush Uterus. It is a soft, pink, oddly-shaped doll with a smiley face on front and fallopian tubes (which serve as arms) stretching out to the sides. Each arm is “holding” a purple ovary.

Now, to be fair, the company creates soft snuggly body organ dolls for almost the whole body, including lungs, brains, kidneys, etc.

They are quite popular.

Unfortunately, I Heart Guts is going through a bit of a difficult time now.

There is a voluntary recall notice that has been issued by the company for the Plush Uterus because the ovaries can apparently become detached and pose a choking hazard for children.

From their website:

Voluntary safety recall of Plush Uterus due to potential choking hazard for children. Recall participants will receive a 15%-off online coupon code. Consumers may either return for refund/exchange, or opt-out via email if the uterus is not accessible to children. Please notify gift recipients.

In an effort to ensure our plush products exceed federal and international safety standards, we learned the 2008 Plush Uterus has failed a pull test. The ovaries may detach when pulled, becoming a potential small part choking hazard for young children. No one has been harmed.

The recall has been in effect since just before Christmas.

It is a relief that no reports of children choking on ovaries have been reported.

If your uterus has been recalled, please contact them at Contact:

wordpress statistics

Posted in Pop Culture, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 25, 2009

Some things in life are no-nos.

Cursing in church falls into that category. Bathing with a plugged-in toaster oven is another. Wearing a vest covered in elk meat while hanging out with starving cougars is probably something to avoid.

And if you live in Independence, Iowa, you best return your library book … or else.


Thirty-nine-year-old Shelly Koontz was arrested Thursday night on a fifth-degree theft charge. She is accused of keeping “The Freedom Writers Diary,” which she checked out from the public library in nearby Jesup in April.

Police say the book—which is about a high school teacher’s effort to inspire students to write—is valued at $13.95.

Court records show library employees tried repeatedly to contact Koontz by phone and mail. A police officer even visited her home last September.

Officials at the Buchanan County jail say Koontz was released after posting $250 bond.

If she had been short the $250, she could have also been assured release by being sent to Guanatanamo Bay.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2009

Obama and GuantanamoThis is utterly burlesque.

No propaganda. No partisan smoke screens. Just cold hard reality.

The President of the United States is not sure what will be happening with the detainees who currently reside at the detention center in Guanatanamo Bay once it closes next year.

He said so.

He just doesn’t know.

There is no plan.

He’ll figure it out.

Pinch me, Mabel, I’m dreaming, right?

He knows enough to be able to say with certitude that the closing of Gitmo is the right thing to do – just as he knew that “a woman’s right to choose” an abortion was the correct position to take, despite not being able to say when human life actually begins – but other than that, he’s just not able to speculate with any confidence where these examples of societal excrement will wind up.

How is it possible that the Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America in good conscience, in the midst of a war against barbaric murderers who will stop at nothing to destroy us, can shut down the prison that houses the very scum that would think nothing of slicing the throats of his own children if given the opportunity without a definitive plan in place? And in the name of what??

(If it helps, Mr. President, pretend the prisoners at Gitmo are Rush Limbaugh).

Not surprisingly, this does not appear to disturb the dazed and confused giddy Obamacrats who are still smoking their post orgasmic inauguration cigarettes one bit. As long as President Obama implements policies that  run contrary to anything undertaken under George W. Bush, the planet is better off.

These are the same people, of course, who screamed, “What’s the exit strategy?!” at the Bush administration following the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Indeed, if there’s another attack against the United States, perpetrated by anyone released from Gitmo as a result of “preserving American ideals and decency,” there’ll be a whole new round of screaming going on.

As it turns out, some of the former graduates of “Club Gitmo” (as Rush Limbaugh calls it) have, in fact, moved on to bigger things.

Two ex-prisoners in particular are especially making their moms proud.

From the AFP:

Two men released from the US “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.

A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.

“We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure,” said Gordon.

“We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose,” he said.

On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

“By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for,” al-Shihri was quoted as saying.

The Pentagon estimates that a little more than ten percent of the 521 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to “the fight.”

To those who find this number too small to be of real concern, consider that even if ten percent of the world’s one billion Muslims sympathize with the “fight” waged by these Islamo-fascist murderers – and even if only ten percent of those sympathizers consider themselves active and enthusiastic supporters of “the cause” – that is, by any measure, substantial.

Said the President on Thursday:

“The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

Wrong, Mr. President.

The message this sends, not unlike the message sent by those opposed to capital punishment, is that the lives of the innocent have equal worth to the lives of murderers … and they most certainly do not. The naivety in the President’s position is the assumption that the enemy holds the same value set we do. Remember, aggressive interrogation methods are not standard-fare in this country. No one advocates that they should be. By contrast, torture is as normal a cultural devise to our enemies as outdoor barbecues on Memorial Day are to Americans.

American values and ideals are altogether consistent with the protection innocent life, rewarding those who do good, and fighting those who would inflict evil on the innocent. This is precisely the charge of the United States.

Obama further said:

“We intend to win this fight. We’re going to win it on our terms.”

How about defining them first, sir?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2009

Has confusion set in yet?

Are the pacifists who had the words “Bush War Crimes” hot-ironed onto their foreheads – those who had visions of impeachment plumbs dancing in their tired minds – wondering what the hell is going on? Perhaps that swearing-in ceremony on Capitol Hill was nothing but a sweet dream – complete with botched Oath, pre-recorded “play along” string arrangement, racist benediction and listless say-nothing speech.

Maybe George W. Bush is really still in charge.

It just doesn’t make sense otherwise.

Those aren’t birds or locusts … those are question marks flying from the spinning craniums of peace-symbol wearing twenty-somethings (and their sixty-something grey-haired pony-tailed mentors) trying to figure out how such a Bush-like move comes from such a savior.

How could The One – the Messiah, if you will – approve of such a thing as launching missiles to kill people? That’s the kind of thing Republicans do. That’s the kind of thing that war mongers and right-wing trigger-happy xenophobes get off on.


Are you in there?

The New York Times, of all places, has the story:

Two missile attacks launched from remotely piloted American aircraft killed at least 15 people in western Pakistan on Friday. The strikes suggested that the use of drones to kill militants within Pakistan’s borders would continue under President Obama.

Remotely piloted Predator drones operated by the Central Intelligence Agency have carried out more than 30 missile attacks since last summer against members of Al Qaeda and other terrorism suspects deep in their redoubts on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.

But some of the attacks have also killed civilians, enraging Pakistanis and making it harder for the country’s shaky government to win support for its own military operations against Taliban guerrillas in the country’s lawless border region.

American officials in Washington said there were no immediate signs that the strikes on Friday had killed any senior Qaeda leaders. They said the attacks had dispelled for the moment any notion that Mr. Obama would rein in the Predator attacks.

Mr. Obama and his top national security aides are likely in the coming days to review other counterterrorism measures put in place by the Bush administration, American officials said.

Dead terrorists, Mr. President.

That’s what we’re shooting for – or aiming for.

The more the merrier.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 23, 2009

harmless fuzz ball

harmless fuzz ball

Dignity, wherefore art thou?

The President sure is making friends off the bat, isn’t he? His silly glove across the face of Rush Limbaugh is already filling up blog space everywhere tonight – and rightly so. It’s been a while since we’ve seen this kind of pettiness coming from the White House. This is just the latest in what has been nearly four days of yanking away the so-called olive branch Barack Obama spent the better part of his campaign promising to extend to the other side and shoving it into the nether regions of his opponents.

After all, in his own words, “I won.” (I’ll get to that in a moment).

Let’s run through a quick checklist …

He has already endeared himself to the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by announcing the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. He’s reached out to pro-lifers by lifting the ban on overseas abortion funding. His economic advisor has decided that white professionals are not good enough for the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. The benediction at his inauguration was, arguably, the most racist prayer I have heard this side of Jeremiah Wright. And he’s already proven what a ray of sunshine he is in dealing with questions he doesn’t wish to answer.

Why can’t he just eat his waffle?

And now this.

To review … according to the New York Post:

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Recall, it was Obama-drooler, former Secretary of State Colin Powell – a Republicrat – who made similar remarks against Limbaugh not too long ago, warning the Republican Party to stop “all the shouting.”

This time, the newest attack against the nation’s top radio talker is coming from the very top. (Not that Limbaugh cannot handle it, believe me).

But it’s not just the signing of Executive Orders in public that keeps the President looking most off kilter, it is the fact that he actually took time to comment on and condemn those who might listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program – this while Obama was attempting to sell his out-of-control “socialism here we come” stimulus package to Republicans.

Perhaps if more members of the GOP actually did expend a little time listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of worrying about how to get Charlie Gibson and Matt Lauer to like them, the 2008 election might have ended with different results. Then, We the People would not have to witness the nation’s Chief Executive come across as petty and unpresidential.

What precisely is The One hoping to achieve here?

RINO #1: “You know, he’s right. We must stop listening to Limbaugh.”
RINO #2: “He is right. I hadn’t thought of it that way before.”
RINO #3: “What do we do now?”
RINO #4: “Don’t worry. The Messiah will tell us what to do.”

Remember, unity is defined as having everyone think as Obama does.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

The response was to the objection by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to the president’s proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don’t owe federal income taxes.

Good for you, Jon.

We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly,” Obama said during the meeting. Republicans say that is too big a burden for a nation already crippled by debt and that it doesn’t do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

“You know, I’m concerned about the size of the package. And I’m concerned about some of the spending that’s in there, [about] … how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives,” House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: “There was a lot of agreement in that room this morning about the notion that we’re facing an economic crisis unlike we’ve seen in quite some time … There was agreement that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people’s pockets.”

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing.

“The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas,” he said. “He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas.”

Two things here …

One, this is not – repeat not – an unprecedented economic crisis. By every measure, not only does the current recession not even qualify to be mentioned in the same paragraph as the Great Depression, but it doesn’t even compare to the economic woes Ronald Reagan inherited when he took office.

Facts are facts.

President of the United States

President of the United States

Two, anyone who believes that the President is going to listen to any ideas that does not involve growing the government by leaps and bounds, please stand on your head.

Will Obama, for instance, be as open-minded about how to handle the economy as he has been on the “case closed” verdict on Global Warming? How many of a rapidly growing list of reputable dissenters has he actually talked to on the subject?

How about his resurrection of the New Deal? Has he talked to any of a number of respected economists who believe that FDR’s big government approach to saving the floundering economy actually prolonged the Great Depression?

And how quickly did President Obama put an axe to Guantanamo Bay? Was it necessary to kill it on his second day in office without having a specific plan – or any plan, for that matter – on what to do with the terrorists who are detained there? Would it have been at all unreasonable to try and formulate a proposal slightly more worthy of the most powerful nation on Earth?

Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh’s radio program returns Monday at 12 Noon EST, live.

I might just give it a listen.


Update: 10:16 PM, 24 January 2009

Byron York, at National Review Online’s The Corner, spoke to Rush Limbaugh early on Saturday to get his response to the BAM attack.

In part, Rush said:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Read the entire response here.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Conservatism, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 23, 2009

The city of Nashville, Tennessee has decided that it will not become an English-only city. Yesterday, voters there gave a thumbs-down to a proposal – called “English First” – that proponents say would have not only united the city but saved money. It would have mandated that the government there conduct its daily affairs in English.

Opponents say becoming an English-only city could have given Nashville a “bad reputation.”

From the Associated Press via Fox News:

Business leaders, academics, religious leaders, Nashville Mayor Karl Dean and Gov. Phil Bredesen argued the measure would tarnish the city’s welcoming image, harm tourism and business recruitment and endanger federal funding for many city services.

Supporter Glenda Paul, 35, said having one language is an important part of keeping government small as she exited a voting precinct Thursday.

“If I moved to France to start a business, I would be expected to speak French and that doesn’t mean that I am not welcome there. It just means I need to respect the language.”

But Claire King, 31, who lives in East Nashville, said Thursday that she voted against the amendment because “it sends a message of intolerance.” She said she thought multiple perspectives and languages enrich to the city’s culture.

I am beginning to believe that the word “intolerance” is genetically engineered into the DNA of liberals and jelly-spined Republicans – or at the very least, is easily contracted in areas susceptible to the spread of infection, like universities and in front of television sets. It is the “Obama” of buzz words – fashionable, attention-grabbing, sounding good on the surface but lacking substance.

There is nothing – repeat nothing – intolerant, in any way, on any level, about affirming English as the official language of any community in the United States. It is, after all (to sound painfully obvious), the language of America. This country quite literally functions in English. It has since its inception. The founding documents were written in English by men who spoke English. George Washington took the Oath of Office as the nation’s first President in English – as has every succeeding President. Indeed, English has served as America’s great unifier, through every wave of immigration, regardless of where it has come from, through the centuries, through every generation.

That is, until recently.

At one time, to assimilate into the American culture was the goal of new arrivals.  (Uh oh, there’s that word). To become part of the American fabric was the purpose of coming here – it was the American dream. Otherwise, why come?

The disease of multiculturalism – including having governments function in multiple languages – only succeeds in creating a detached underclass – giving birth to segregated tribes set apart from the larger culture.

And for what? To make people feel good about themselves? To boost self-esteem?

“Yes, your culture of denying basic human rights to citizens, suppressing freedom, and slaughtering young women for not wearing face coverings is the moral and social equivelant of the American culture.”

It isn’t. Sorry.

Without a doubt, there are wonderful people everywhere in this world, but to reject the notion that there are cultures and civilizations better than others is to reject reality.

One can either be a liberal and live in worlds they wish existed, or join the adults and deal with certainty.

There is a puzzling willfulness – and eagerness – by those on the Left to dismiss the idea of a genuine American culture, or better yet, a superior American culture, an American exceptionalism that continues to draw so many people from every corner of the globe. Academia, intelligencia and self-proclaimed Citizens of the World are quick to discredit claims that success in this country – available to anyone and everyone who wishes to work for it – is made possible by embracing that exceptionalism, instead crediting this country’s greatness to its “diversity.”


That is not where America derives her greatness.

Remember … the phrase is: “Out of many, one.”

How can anyone deny that good language skills are absolutely necessary to rise from the underclass to the middle class in this country?  History has shown that.

Thus, with history on the side of those who supported the “English First” measure in Nashville, why would anyone knowingly and in good-conscience vote against the proposal?

Because liberals don’t want what is best for people … they only want what makes them feel good about themselves.

That’s Liberalism 101 – whether it works or not is of no consequence. Whether it feels good is paramount.


wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 23, 2009

Et, tu baseball?

Since Election Day, 2008, there have been streets and schools renamed for our new President, flags redesigned and desecrated with his image, holidays created for him, and a plethora of blabbering television newscasters gushing like bobby soxers over him. Rumor has it we could even see an Executive Order signed by President Obama – with White House counsel Gregory Craig by his side ready to wind him up for the Q&A – renaming a state or two after him (one of those forgettable fly-over states where the corn is).

The borough of Brooklyn, here in New York City – where voters went for Barack Obama by a margin of 4 to 1 – is home to the single-A minor-league baseball team, the Brooklyn Cyclones. They have a beautiful facility by the famed Coney Island boardwalk called Key Span Park.

On June 23rd, the Cyclones are renaming their team – for one night only – the BARACKLYN Cyclones. They will be issuing jerseys with “Baracklyn” across the front in a red, white and blue color scheme, along with Obama bobbleheads and other goodies such as:

baracklyn cyclonesThe Economic Stimulus Package: From 10am on January 20th – Inauguration Day – to midnight on January 23rd, ticket prices for the June 23rd game will be “rolled back” to the Cyclones’ inaugural 2001 season rates: $10 Field Box Seats, $8 Box Seats, $5 Bleacher Seats. Beginning January 24th, tickets will be priced at the regular 2009 rates ($15.oo, $12.00, $8.00)

Universal Health Care: Free Band-Aids to the first 1,000 fans

Naming Rights: Anyone named Barack gets in for free

Joe the Plumber special: any plumber named Joe gets two free tickets – one for himself, and one to “spread the wealth” with a friend

Bi-Partisan Consolation Prize: anyone named McCain or Palin will get a free Bleacher Seat

A clear-cut Exit Strategy: fans will receive American Flags and discount coupons as they leave the ballpark

Whether scratch and sniff stickers featuring the aromatic splendor of the President puffing on his favorite cigarette will be available is unknown at this time.

The team is also launching a website, , that is said to offer “progress updates, photos, blog entries, and a behind the scenes look at what goes into creating the Baracklyn promotion.”

At the team’s regular website is this inspirational message from the team’s General Manager, Steve Cohen:

“Barack Obama has energized and captivated the entire country, and we are proud to support our new president as America enters a new era in its history. The similarities between his name and our home borough opened up avenues for the Cyclones to incorporate that support in interesting and humorous ways. The President-elect’s message is one of change. In an effort to pay homage to that idea, we’re changing our prices, our policies, and the name of our team – for one day, at least.”

As I’ve alluded to many times, the line separating parody and reality in this country is vanishing like Gitmo. Ideas that once seemed perfectly fitting for the front page of The Onion, or as a sketch on Saturday Night Live have suddenly crossed over into the realm of reality, e.g., “Global Warming Causes Global Cooling.

Back on November 21, 2008 – long before the marketing team at the Cyclones’ front office started congratulating themselves for a promotion well-done – I wrote a piece called “What’s In A Name” after an elementary school here in New York was renamed for then President-Elect Barack Obama. In an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of the whole thing, I wrote:

He is not the President yet, people!

On the horizon, some possible adjustments to look for:

-Brooklyn Bridge to Baracklyn Bridge
-Broadway to Barackway
-Bedford Stuyvesant to Barackford Stuyvesant

I should have copyrighted the damn thing.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2009

There will probably be some who don’t pick up on the reference to the classic Mel Brook’s movie Blazing Saddles, but today’s signing of the Executive Order by President Barack Obama calling for the close of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay was not unlike watching a scene from what is one of the funniest motion pictures ever made.

The President reminded me of Governor William J. Lepetomane (Mel Brooks), the man in charge who is far more focused on the buoyant breasts of the lady in his office than the matters at hand. By his side is Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman), the informed, conniving side-kick with all the answers, diligently (frantically) keeping Lepetomane in the loop. That role was played today by Gregory Craig, the man who defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings, now White House counsel.

Indeed, the President seemed a bit lost, not exactly sure of what it was he was signing – although, oddly enough, he is the President of the United States. (It was in all the papers).

Here is a link to the complete video of the President of the United States effectively compromising the country’s security in the name of whatever foolhardy politically-motivated excuse he is using to justify it, via MSNBC.

For those who wish not to sit through the entire seven minutes of the Obamacratic ongoings, the key moment, where the President asks Mr. Craig about the content of his own Executive Order, is at about :45 seconds into the video.

Incidentally, here is the clip from Blazing saddles, via You Tube, I am referring to.

You be the judge.

By the way, watch Blazing Saddles, if you haven’t.

Posted in Big Government, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2009

Mr. Reich, professional

Mr. Reich, professional

With the stirring, heartfelt words of Reverend Joseph Lowery still resonating across the multicultural divide that (according to liberals) defines America’s greatness, comes further revelation that the white people of America have had it too good for too long – particularly professionals.

Gather around for just a moment, if you would.

I’d like to try a little exercise in reverse racism you might find interesting. Just for grins and giggles, substitute the word “white” for “black” in following passages. (If you’d rather use “hispanic” or “oriental,” feel free).

Just beginning to make the rounds across the blogosphere in earnest today are comments made on January 7th by Obama economic advisor Robert Reich at an Economic Recovery Plan Meeting in which he said:

“Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the conomy. The challenge will be to do it quickly – to find projects that can be done, that have a high social return, that also can be done with the greatest speed possible. I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals, or to white male construction workers.”

No, this is not a comedy sketch. It is a “Yes We Can” moment meant to foster unity.

He went on to say:

“I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well, and therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you – and I’m certainly happy to talk about it more – ways in which the money can be – uh, the criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.”

Did you substitute “white” with any other racial and cultural designation?

Wasn’t it fun?

Maybe it’s just me, but if the advisor had been on the George W. Bush team of financial gurus, and non-white professionals were singled out, would the backlash be anything short of furious? Shouldn’t it be?

All that was missing from Reich’s assertions was the rhyming scheme, ala Reverend Joseph Lowery …

“Where blacks can build streets, so they can eat … Where brown can build a bridge in your town … Where the broken-hearted can survive by extending Interstate Five…”

By all means, let’s bring in the non-professionals to build up America’s infrastructure … and as long as they aren’t white professionals, may the spirit of freedom ring.

(Say, amen).

But what of black professionals? Surely there must be some in this country of intolerance, close-mindedness, oppression and hatred. Are they to be excluded, too?

Haven’t people of Spanish origin risen to the level of “professional” in this nation yet? I could have sworn I saw one once. Are they to be denied?

Personally, I feel a bit left out – and inadequate. Seeing as I am white, and whites apparently have not been affected by the recession, I have clearly let my fellow caucasions down.  I promise to do my best to not let the recession affcet my family and me next time.

Here’s the Reich video from You Tube.


Update: 22 January 2009 4:04 PM

I received a private e-mail through one of the blog sites where this article is posted.

It read, in part:

“Are you a white supremist? Or sympathetic to the cause? Your article is posted at a White Power website, I hope you know. You must be a white racist, based on this ugly article.”

The ugliness is in the reverse racism of Mr. Reich’s remarks – and the fact that no one, outside of talk radio is even bringing this up.

I have no control where links to my articles are posted, except where I specifically post them – like at the great Free website or at

There is not a single racist phrase, passage, word or idea in any article I have ever written.  I defy any clear thinking blogger – regardless of what side of the aisle he or she is on – to find where I have been racist. To discuss matters of race does not mean one is racist.

To answer your question directly, I am not a white supremist. In fact, being a Jew, I am guessing that I would not be among the most welcome in that particular group of people.  Skin color is so irrelevant to me when it comes to matters of conducting life, making decisions and doing what’s right that I have yet to see a mechanism invented that can measure my indifference to it.

However, Robert Reich, as evidenced in the video I have linked to, apparently does care about skin color – enough that he could accurately be called a white racist, only in reverse.

It is sickening.

Racism against any race – including whites – is deplorable.



Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2009



He’s already frozen the pay of the White House staff.

For those keeping score at home, Barack Obama’s second full day as President looks to be at least as eventful.

This is, indeed, the portion of the program where the new President not only starts to rearrange the furniture and hang up vacation plates in his new Pennsylvania Avenue diggs, but where he begins putting his own stamp on the Presidency.

Today, if he sticks to the docket, he’ll be slipping on his “Executive Order” shoes early, breaking out his ball point pen and signing the death warrant of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, granting it one more year of feeble existence before it closes forever.

According to Fox News:

Under a scenario foreshadowed in the draft orders, some detainees being held at Guantanamo would be released, while others would be transferred elsewhere and later put on trial under terms to be determined. Closing Guantanamo could potentially mean moving the remaining detainees to federal prisons in the U.S., such as the Leavenworth prison in Kansas.

That’s no misprint.

The scenario prescribes that “some detainees at Guantanamo would be released.”

How’s that for a warm and fuzzy thought?

The President’s decision to slice the throat of the Guantanamo Bay facility (ugly pun most definitely intended) means that the options for the remaining vermin being held there include bringing them to the United States for trial (thus granting them the rights of citizens), releasing them to “other nations” to incarcerate, or sending them back where they came from so that they might return to the peaceful lives they were leading before being dragged to Gitmo.

Offering them discounted out-of-state college tuition hasn’t been officially proposed yet, but that, too, may be forthcoming.

It is no wonder the families of 9/11 victims are outraged.

“To me it’s beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists,” said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. “Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again.”

Back on January 14th, in an article called “Life After Gitmo,” I wrote:

” … a new revelation from the Pentagon has come to light – namely, that as many as 61 former detainees have returned to terrorist activity after being released.

(jaw hits floor)

I don’t know about you, but I would have guessed the existence of Santa Claus – or clear thinking liberals – to be more of a likely prospect.

Who’d have guessed that upon discharge, the human dregs that made up the population of Gitmo would have returned to the cesspool from whence they came.”

Former Commander Kirk Lippold, who saw seventeen of his sailors murdered when the USS Cole was bombed by suicide terrorists in 2000 said:

“There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can’t conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people. It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed.”


As a side note, Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania says he’d have no problem letting Guantanamo Bay detainees occupy jails in his district if it should come to that.

Of course, if all this Gitmo talk has you bored to tears, don’t fret.

President Obama also intends to reverse what is known as the “Mexico City Policy” – a ban on funding for groups overseas that provide abortions.

From Fox News:

President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.

Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The policy, known in governmental circles as the “Mexico City policy,” requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

Yes he can.

And just think … The Freedom of Choice Act is still to come.

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009

Daddy’s little girl will not make like Uncle Teddy and Uncle Bobby (and Daddy too). Caroline says no. And now that Hillary is officially Secretary of State, there is an empty Senate seat to fill.

From the New York Post via Fox News:

caroline-kennedy1Caroline Kennedy has told Gov. David Paterson that she is withdrawing her name from consideration to replace outgoing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the U.S. Senate, The Post has learned.

Kennedy cited “personal reasons,” according to sources.

Her stunning move comes as sources revealed that Paterson had intended to appoint her to the now-vacant seat today.

The 51-year-old Camelot daughter’s decision removes the highest-profile name in the ring to step into Clinton’s seat, as she departs after getting confirmed as President Obama’s Secretary of State today.

The surprise decision leaves a crowded field of about 15 people, mostly elected officials, vying to replace Clinton — including Long Island Rep. Steve Israel, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, upstate Rep. Kirstin Gillibrand and Rep. Carolyn Maloney.

A lib is a lib of course, of course …

In other news, I found that missing two-dollar bill I’d been looking for. It was between Pages 74 and 75 of my first edition copy of “See I Told You So” by Rush Limbaugh.

Also, Kermit the Frog’s voice has never sounded right since Jim Hensen passed away.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009


 “If it wasn’t for your bum knee, you coulda carried two of these things.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009

If skies were cloudy where you were yesterday – Inauguration Day, 2009 – don’t look to the ravages of climate change for the explanation. Rather, blame it on a bloated, overloaded Cloud Nine that hovered like a Goodyear Blimp over the entirety of the nation, swollen with salivating main-stream media types, blocking out just about all light, objectivity, reason and sanity from the American airwaves and landscape. Had a cure for cancer been discovered, or Jesus’ return to Earth confirmed by two or more sources, one would still have to believe that Barack Obama’s ascendancy into the Messianic Palace would have garnered more thrills and tickles among the newsroom elites. Why President Obama did not just walk across the Reflecting Pool on his way to the Inauguration still befuddles me.

Talk show host Sean Hannity has a montage that runs about two-and-a-half minutes, illustrating the post-Inauguration outbreak of Obama-mania across the giddy ranks of today’s mainstream media. Whereas at one time the likes of Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Eric Sevareid and John Chancellor would have at least tried – I say, tried – to keep their biases to themselves for the sake of objectivity, today’s lot of TV heads are unabashed in their leg-jiggling, mouth-watering, happy-dance Obamacratic glee.

Here is the audio.

Be sure to have a towel-ready. The flow of saliva is particularly heavy.

Many thanks to AT for the audio.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009

At the great Vocal Minority website, ETR follows up on a story that both he and I have written about in the past few days – namely, the desecration of the American flag by ardent Obama supporters in the name of patriotism.

My article, Symbolism Matters, touches upon the decline of importance Americans place on the symbols this country holds dear. As I see it, it is a situation that is both sad and infuriating.

ETR’s comments are poignant, direct and spot on.

He writes:

A couple days ago I posted on a Baltimore Sun article that exposed Obama fans parading through Baltimore with American flags with Barack Obama’s face and name on them. I wondered whether these flags, which are illegal, would appear inauguration day in D.C. And sure enough, they did:


Um, were there any actual American flags at the coronation?

Nice job, ETR.

He also links to Michelle Malkin, who has additional pictures of this new uber-patriotism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009

Joseph Lowery

Joseph Lowery

Yesterday’s inaugural ceremony benediction by the Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery certainly has caused a bit of a stir – at least among those of us who pay attention. My short little harmless commentary on yesterday’s closing prayer called “This Is A Benediction?” has received a host of responses on Free and at Roman Around.

Indeed, I do very much enjoy engaging in debate. When I receive opposing viewpoints that are not riddled with expletives and personal attacks, I like to take them on. Occasionally I’ll even post them.

This is just such an occasion.

Someone called “Judi” took issue with my disdain at yesterday’s benediction – particularly the closing. 

Recall that Reverend Lowery said:

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back … when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man … and when white will embrace what is right …” 

I’ll address Judi’s points one by one.

Judi wrote:

My my my. Who knew that something so simple would turn into such a mess.

The simplicity of what was offensive about Reverend Lowery’s benediction, Judi, is found in the explicit racism of his words. His condemnation of whites in total –  false condemnation, as it were – is, by definition, racist. Thus, the situation is a “mess” for two reasons: One, because of the gross inappropriateness of the comments and, two, because of the downright falsehoods contained therein.

The sad irony is that the benediction delivered at the inaugural of America’s first black President – a man who had the word “unity” tattooed on his forehead during the campaign season – was as divisive as any I have ever heard.

His words were entirely ill-suited because a benediction is no place to spew politically controversial – and ultimately fallacious – statements in the guise of prayer. That he chose the inauguration of the first black President of the United States to fight a battle that has long since been won, using phraseology of a time and era that no longer exists is what makes it as much embarrassing as it is unbecoming.

The implication of a society so mired in racism that blacks still are relegated to the “back” (as in “back of the bus,” I assume), or that “browns” (whoever they are) are being made to not “stick around” is as patently ridiculous as the notion that opposing same-sex marriage, by default, means despising homosexuals.

All non-whites, in the gospel according to Mr. Lowery, are still victims. Whites, on the other hand, are still the oppressors. America, therefore, is racist.

Judi wrote:

Maybe instead of whites looking to find something to be offended about perhaps we should all look at situations where someone was being oppressed and we were complacent. For whites to embrace what is right has been a long time coming.

Judi, if you think that conservatives were just lying in wait for the benediction to be delivered so that they might spring into collective action against Barack Obama, you are more naïve than your post would indicate. Why bother attacking the benediction – the portion of the ceremony that would seem to be the most appealing to conservatives – when there is so much else to get on Obama’s back about? After all, don’t conservatives dig all that “God” stuff?

American whites elected the man into office. The transition of power was peaceful. There were no “white uprisings” against the election of the new President.

And what exactly do you mean that it’s about time whites embraced “what is right?”

Are you ignorant of world history? Or American history?

Since you choose to spit out knee-jerk nonsensical race-based gibberish that is altogether inapplicable in this context, here are a few facts you should embrace, as enumerated by a blogger called lady lawyer at Free

It was white people who, for the first time in the history of the world said, “We are strong enough to enslave other people, but it is wrong, and we are not going to do it any more.”

It was white people who then pressed the rest of the (non-white) world to give up slavery. It was legal in parts of the Arab world until the 20th century.

It was white people who set up a government of laws guaranteeing them freedom. But that freedom presumed and required that individuals “embrace right” by regulating their own behavior, providing for their families, obeying the laws, respecting the property of others, and being productive.

It was white people who kept that system going and productive, and created a country which has given more freedom and prosperity to its citizens — of all colors — than any other country in the world.

Any person of any color who “embraces right” in this country can get ahead. “Embracing right” means work before pleasure, paying rent before buying bling, marriage before children, and all the other daily choices that constitute “embracing right.”

Elizabeth Alexander - delivered a "what the heck was that?" poen at Obama's inauguration Tuesday.

Elizabeth Alexander - delivered a "what the heck was that?" poem at Obama's inauguration on Tuesday.

Words mean things – and perhaps Mr. Lowery’s rhyming passages of lyrical whimsy could have best been applied to the portion of the program reserved for the “poem.” (Lord knows, whatever it was that Elizabeth Alexander read during the “poetry” portion of the program made the ingredient listing on a box of Kibbles ‘N Bits much more thought provoking).

After all, “yellow” and “mellow” certainly do rhyme – but I am not aware of any tendency of Asain-Americans to suddenly fly into fits of fury. Nor is there any problem with those who are “brown” not sticking around. I don’t even know what the implication is supposed to be there, but it does rhyme.

No one can deny the wrongs of America’s past. But those wrongs were not uniquely American. They were universal injustices that existed throughout all of human civilization for millenia.

Yet it was uniquely Western Civilation that, in a relatively short period of time, erradicated slavery. 

Judi wrote:

Regardless, at the end of the day it was meant to be uplifting and positive and spread a bit of joy by encouraging all people to do the right thing towards your fellow man and speak out when injustice is being done. That’s what a benediction is meant to be. 

It was “meant” to be uplifting?

Do liberals do anything other than proffer good intentions? Do liberals ever behave as adults and think about what happens next as a result of their well-meaning actions?

How exactly does the Lowery diatribe uplift? What positives come from such stale discrepant poppycock? How does portraying non-whites as perpetual victims of an institutionally racist country motivate? How does telling people they are not good enough, or suggest that they are not afforded the same opportunities as others, when they most certainly are (as the inauguration of Obama illustrates), inspire them? 

There is nothing that could be further from the truth than to imply that the United States of America is a racist nation, Judi.

This country is the most accommodating, least racist nation on Earth.

Judi wrote:

These posts are heartbreaking really. Just sad and petty. If you are embracing what is right then he wasn’t speaking to you. If instead you we’re offended perhaps that’s a bit of guilt and maybe you should reevaluate the way you lead your life.

Jesus loves the little children/All the children of the world/Red and Yellow Black and White/They are precious in his sight/Jesus loves the little children of the world.

How offensive. The audacity.

There is a time and place for everything – no matter how obtuse or inane. But the inaugural of the President is not the time for a man of faith to regurgitate his political rhetoric, nor is it felicitous, in the name of God, to invoke racial divisions. The fact that the man being inaugurated was, in fact, a black man renders Mr. Lowery’s comments as ludicrous and outrageous as screaming out against global warming while braving harsh winter winds.

Judi, shouldn’t statements like these have some truth in them?

That you choose to quote lyrics from the famous song about Jesus loving all the little children of the world is adorable, to be sure, but perfectly irrelevant to any of this discussion. I also love puppies, chocolate fudge and little babies, but how on Earth is that pertinent here?

The audacity lies with those on the Left who continue to foster these divides between races.

And believe me … there is not a racist electron in my body. As God is my witness, the race of a human being is absolutely of no consequence when making decisions, arriving at judgments, or ascertaining character.

Kind of like Dr. King said.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2009

Obama takes the oath

Obama takes the oath

The Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery gave the benediction at today’s inauguration of Barack Obama. It could more accurately be called a political ramble. It was, in no uncertain terms, an embarrassment. And as loathe as I am to have to use a word that has long been at the heart and soul of liberal thought, I will break out my Liberal/English dictionary and say it … It was offensive.

Said Mr. Lowery:

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back … when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man … and when white will embrace what is right …”


First off, this is a prayer?

Second, was the Reverend Lowery listening to old Jesse Jackson speeches before he gave this so-called prayer? The fact that the man can rhyme words only means that his faculties may parallel those of Dr. Suess, not that he is coherent. 

What on earth is the man talking about?

Is this the segregated South in 1948?

What blacks are being kept “in back?” Where exactly is this happening? Did he not notice that Barack Obama just took a slightly fractured Oath of Office?

What “browns” are not sticking around? What precisely does that mean? Because it rhymes doesn’t mean it makes sense.

The same holds true for “yellow” and “mellow.” Is he referring to the propensity for Asain-Americans to resort to violence? Or the tumultuous uprisings that have defined orientals in the United States?


“The red man?” “Get ahead, man?” (You’re kidding, right?)

And that “white will embrace what is right?”

Who on earth do you think elected the man, sir? White America.

Of course, if electing Barack Obama is what constitutes “right,” he may be onto something.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 30 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2009




Doesn’t the bike get a blanket?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2009

red, withe, blue ... and black?

red, white, blue ... and black?

When The One famously said, “I decided I won’t wear that pin in on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism,” he decided that his kind of patriotism did not involve displaying the American flag on his lapel.

His choice.

Of course, within days, he had that pesky little bugger back on his jacket. (Political Expedience 101).

But that was the traditional, everyday, run-of-the-mill American flag – the kind with 13 red and white stripes and fifty stars. (Ho hum). It wasn’t the new American flag – or should I say, the flag of the Obama-Nation – as displayed at a recent rally for Obama in Baltimore. Oh, sure it looked the American flag in many ways. Indeed, it had the stripes, the stars and the familiar red, white and blue color scheme, but it also had the Messiah’s face on it, along with the “O” that has become his trademark symbol. It also had the words “44th president” on it and his inauguration date.

The problem is … it is a violation of US Code to desecrate the American flag, and that is precisely what these enthusiastic supporters have done by adding pictures and words to it. They’ve defaced the flag of their own country.  (I’m guessing most didn’t even know it. More’s the pity).

Specifically, it violates Title 36 of the US Code:

Title 36
§176. Respect for flag.

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor …

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

This isn’t capital murder, obviously.

Can people be prosecuted for it?


Is there a mechanism prescribed by law that allows for the “enforcement” of such violations?


Did I feel the same way when President George W. Bush did the same thing by signing his autograph on American flags?

I did. (Although a case could probably be made that asking the President to sign a hand-held flag is not quite the same as having people willfully and deliberately desecrate the flag with symbols and writing).

But simply because one cannot be arrested for desecrating the American flag does not mean the act is acceptable or should be ignored. Children, for example, cannot be hauled away for cursing at their parents. Adults cannot be locked up for infidelity to their spouses. Both acts, however, are examples of non-arrestable actions that are unacceptable.

But what of the greater issue here?

The American flag is the symbol of our nation … and symbolism matters. It is how we pay tribute and show respect to the values and traditions we hold dear. Having reverence for the symbols that represent our most cherished customs and institutions is a sign of strength and identity. Symbolism matters not just on a personal level – photographs, trinkets, heirlooms – but they matter just as much, if not more, at the national level. To cheapen the symbols of America cheapens our very character, our oneness, our personality, our uniqueness.

These things do matter.

Why desecrate a symbol is you are not intending to desecrate what the symbol represents?

(If that is your intention, so be it. That’s a separate issue. But if the intent is not to demean what the symbol stands for, then how does one justify it? What does that say of the character of the one doing it?)

The idea of respecting symbols is seen by many as just another way of preserving the crotchety antiquated past.  It is also seen as a barrier to those who think “freedom of expression” should always trump the need to respect those things most meaningful to the society as a whole. “It’s how I feel, so I’m gonna do it!” 

Thank you, Age of Narcissism.

Symbols simply mean nothing to many.

I’ve read comments on other blogs that reflect this kind of sad attitude:

bush_signs_flag“It’s just a flag. Get over it.”

“The flag is not America, idiots.”

“This somehow bothers you when innocents are dying in Iraq?”

Comments like these are disappointing – but expected. There are things that should – I say, should – transcend politics.

My point, by the way, is not to imply in any way that the next President had anything to do with these exuberant rally-goers in Baltimore. I don’t think it for a moment.

There are simply many of us who take the desecration of flag seriously … and wish others did too, regardless of what political stripes they wear.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2009

we the people

Believe it or not, today will not be the most important moment in the history of the United States. It won’t be, despite the rhapsodic coverage the main stream media has afforded it. Indeed, I would say the same thing if Obama were a Republican – but then the media wouldn’t be wetting itself as it is now.

Quite literally, today is the inauguration of the nation’s 44th President. It is an historic day, to be sure. I’d be intellectually dishonest to deny the reality of it.

To review … Barack Obama is a Democrat – a liberal with dark skin, something I mention only because it is seemingly more relevant to a whole host of folks than the leftist policies he advocated during the campaign, born of one white parent and one black parent (not descended from slaves). I cannot help but wonder what sort of spin we will see when the first black President born of two black parents hits the Oval Office, both descendants of slaves. That, too, will depend on whether he or she is a Democrat or Republican. 

The new President comes to power with a list of questionable acquaintances from his Illinois past. He is a man who reads from cue-cards and teleprompters like no other before him, one who mesmerizes audiences like a 22-year old Paul McCartney at the Hollywood Bowl, with a resume as thin as a piece of egg matzoh, who believes that we “can.”

God Bless him.

I truly only wish the best for my country, the United States of America. Whether that is possible under an Obama administration is a different kettle of sea-kittens.

Yes, today is, indeed, a big day … and I can hardly wait for it to be over.

If you are not among those of us who will be at work today when Obama takes the oath of office at around noon, and you do have access to a television set, but you just aren’t inclined to watch the inaugural proceedings, there are other options available to you.

The Learning Channel’s “My Shocking Story” looks at a man born with a parasitic twin in a special called “Octopus Man.” The Golf Channel has Paid Programming … but who knows what they’re selling. Home Shopping Network has “Elegant Fine Jewelry,” for those of you interested in elegant fine jewelry. And don’t forget to set your DVRs to Planet Green’s “Emeril Green.” In today’s noon-time episode, an annual block party takes place where party planners decide to go green.

Hold me.

It’s always good to have an alternate plan of action, just in case the other seven-hundred and eighty-nine channels covering the Obama inauguration go out.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

I recognize that this particular choice as one of the most memorable moments from the George W. Bush presidency may appear painfully cliche and wholly predictable.

I accept that.

That it has been seen many times makes it no less powerful or less stirring.

It is from September 14, 2001 at Ground Zero.

It is the third of three moments I have chosen to commemorate as the Bush presidency draws to a close.

The first two clips I have chosen as ones to remember can be seen here:

George W. Bush – September 20, 2001 in front of a joint session of Congress.

George W. Bush – September 11, 2001 – We will make no distinction.



Update: 19 January 2009, 12:55 AM

A blogger from Free called Wolfstar commented:

Why does the author have to clothe his praise in such simpering defensiveness? That moment at Ground Zero was wildly uplifting, unique among presidential speeches, and wholly unpredictable.

He is, of course, right. While I certainly did not wish to be defensive in any way (nor did I feel I needed to be), it nontheless seems to have come across that way. It is a fair assessment. My intention, rather, was to present this clip in the spirit of  “No matter how many times you’ve seen it, it is no less moving, no less stirring.”

I should have worded it that way.

The fact remains, it was an unforgettable moment.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

With less than two days before Barack Obama takes the oath of office, and with seemingly every square inch of American humanity and culture consumed with all things messianic, I wanted to recall a few memorable moments of the George W. Bush presidency.

I ‘ve already posted one – a powerful moment from George W. Bush’s speech before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Not surprisingly, for me, they all center around 9/11.

This is the second of those three.

It comes from the night of September 11, 2001 – just about twelve hours after the North Tower of the World Trade Center was attacked.

The clip is only :22 seconds in length, but it is the very essence of how the President chose to approach the war against Islamo-fascist terrorists.

It is, for me, one the most memorable moments from the Bush Presidency.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009


On January 6th, Congressman Jose Serrano from the Bronx introduced a bill in the House of Representatives calling for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. For those who are not aware of what that is, it is sometimes known as the “Roosevelt” amendment, adopted in 1951, setting term-limits on the United States Presidency. Franklin Roosevelt, recall, was elected four times – the only President in the nation’s history to be elected more than twice.

Mr. Serrano is calling for a Constitutional Amendment making the 22nd null and void.

The bill is short and sweet.

It reads as follows:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:


`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’

My initial instinct was to ask if Mr. Serrano would have ever considered introducing such a bill following the elections of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. As it turns out, Mr. Serrano has called for the 22nd Amendament’s repeal several times before … but in terms of press coverage, it was always relegated to Page Thirty status, just underneath the ads for armpit hair removal gel.

The story is making headlines now because of The One’s annointment on Tuesday.

Frankly, this rise of the Obama-Nation has me Obama-nauseous. I’m even seeing praises being heaped on our next President in supermarket in-store coupon booklets.

But let’s be perfectly honest … is an amendment to the Constituion even necessary?

How can mere mortals expect to impose any limitations on a messiah? Saviors have work-arounds.


Update: 18 January 2009 11:35AM

A blogger at the great Free website by the name of Venturer posted this comment:

He has been doing this for years.

From his Wiki:

José Enrique Serrano was born in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

In each of 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009, Serrano introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president. Each resolution, with the exception of the current one, died without ever getting past the committee.

A member of the Progressive Caucus, he is widely regarded as one of the most liberal members of Congress.

Congressman Serrano has been a critic of the Bush administration’s approach to handling President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. In 2005, while the Venezuelan President was in New York City speaking before the United Nations, the congressman invited him to his district to speak to his constituency.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 10 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

In recent days, there have been a host of articles, recollections, retrospectives and commentary tendered on the Presidency of George W. Bush.

As expected, with the grace of a five-year old’s temper tantrum, many of the Bush missives have been mercilessly scathing and unforgiving. Some have been fair, but most have been written by spoiled-brat foot-stompers who cannot stop sticking pins in their “W” dolls long enough to string two coherent thoughts together. Admittedly, there is enough to criticize President Bush for from a conservative perspective, but it’s difficult to take any analysis of his eight years in office seriously that relentlessly punishes him for keeping the United States free from terrorism for seven years.

Rather than compose a piece trying to summarize the Bush Presidency, as many more have done far better than I could ever hope to, I decided to post a modest little video, just over a minute long, that I consider one of the shining moments of his Presidency – a powerful, moving and unforgettable moment from his time as Commander-In-Chief.

It illustrates his strength as well as his humanity.

It was nine days after the attacks of September 11, 2001 in front of a joint session of Congress.

It moved me then and still does, to this day.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2009

hero-pilotI am still amazed.

Thursday’s miraculous water landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River has been all anyone has been able to talk about here in New York City for almost two days now – and rightly so. Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger pulled off what the Wall Street Journal called “one of the rarest and most technically challenging feats in commercial aviation: landing on water without fatalities.” It was nothing short of astounding.

155 human beings are alive today to share their harrowing, larynx-scratching, inseam-wetting stories of the doomed flight because of Sullenberger’s heroics.

Make no mistake, this is a genuine American hero.

J. Lynn Lunsford at the Wall Street Journal writes:

In the minutes after takeoff, the pilot managed to maneuver past the skyscrapers of Manhattan and into the crowded Hudson River, even though the engines were disabled after apparently hitting a flock of geese.

Passengers said the plane was vibrating violently and the cabin began to fill with smoke. To reach its splashdown spot, witnesses said the jet glided over the George Washington Bridge before plopping into the water.

“The fact that passengers were able to walk off that airplane and wait on the wing for rescuers to arrive is remarkable. It’s amazing,” said aviation consultant Tommy McFall, a former airline pilot and retired accident investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board.

I just had to take a few ticks of the clock to tip my hat to the man who pulled off the nearly impossible. In an era when Britney Spears’ pantiless escapades grab headlines, Boy George’s frolicing adventures in same-sex bondage warrant media attention and foul-mouthed gangsta-rappers are considered heroes, it was necessary to spare one moment to celebrate a real hero – Chesley B. Sullenberger.

At the great Ace of Spades HQ website, blogger “Slublog” sums it up perfectly: “If there’s any justice in the world, Sullenberger will never have to pay for another beer in his life.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2009


Remember the e-Harmony “gay dating” story from last November? The one where the New Jersey Attorney General “suggested” that it would be a good idea for the famed dating site to open up a venue for homosexuals after a same-sex love seeker sued them for not having gay matchmaking?

It prompted me to write an article called “The Tyranny of Equality.” Some of the best angry e-mails I have ever received were in response to that article.

(Angry e-mails from the Left? What? Is water wet?)

Today, someone called “Matthew” posted a reply to the original article – one that was actually light on expletives and somewhat substantive.

I found his comments fairly typical of the modern anti-God, anti-traditional Leftocrat and thought the “exchange” between the two of us would be of interest to some.

Here it is:


Thanks very much for your comments, Matthew.

Let me try to address what you’ve written.


As to eHarmony being Christian oriented, has it occurred to the writer that most Gays are Christian?

Of course. I never said anything that would suggest otherwise. I don’t know how many homosexuals consider themselves to be “practicing Christains,” but it wouldn’t surprise me if the majority do. So what? That neither negates nor illegitimizes my point.

The site was originally set up to be a “christian” dating site.

You certainly know as well as I that when the word “Christian” is used in public discourse as well as in popular culture, the implication is for the traditional view of the religion. Hence, the terms “Christain Right,” “Evangelical Christians” and “Christian Dating Services” are universally understood to mean traditional christianity. There is no ambiguity there.

Interstingly, liberals often use it as a perjorative.

That homosexuality is not traditionally accepted in Christianity means the responsibility of clarifying that the person in question (in this context) happens to be “homosexual” lies with that homosexual.

It is not unreasonable.


Although, there are many gay oriented singles sites, e-Harmony is unique in that is uses a psychological test to find partners compatible for the long term. I would think that the owners of eHarmony would be happy to enlarge the patronage of their business, and in the end, the decision seems to be a compromise where they acknowledged just that.

To me, the problem with the entire situation was that the government stepped in to compel a private company to undertake a specific business practice. That is a decision best left to the private sector, not government. It is as much an act of tyranny as having the government come into someone’s bedroom to prohibit two consenting adults from engaging in sex.

Matthew, I am not obliged to approve of homosexual sex, nor is anyone else. However, no one I know favors arm-banded sex police invading private quarters.

That government feels it is its place to make sure that all things are equal to all people is what I mean by the “tyranny of equality.”

And as far as “gay oriented singles sites,” let the free market dictate what happens. How about an enterprising profit-minded go-getter create something similar to e-Harmony, but only for gays? It’s called capitalism.


As for Proposition 8… It is hypocritical that the gay community is criticized for promiscuity and a lack of long term commitments and then denied the tools to achieve long term relationships. Both the issue of eHarmony and Prop 8 demonstrate this hypocrisy in action.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I have never – never – used promiscuity as an argument against same-sex marriage. Male nature is male nature, regardless of which sex he is attracted to. Both straight and gay men need to fight their natures to be good men. Men are far more stimulated by the visual than females are – regardless if the object of that stimulation is the same sex or opposite sex.

Take the case of the now defunct Playgirl Magazine. The overwhelming majority of those who bought the magazine were gay men. Magazines full of naked people don’t interest women as much as they do men.

What promescuity has to do with this is beyond me.

And no one is denying gay people the right to long term relationships. I certainly am not. Where exactly is this happening? Homosexuals can stay together as long as they choose, just like straight people can. The issue here is redefining marriage – not banning relationships.

I’m sorry, but, respectfully, there is no hypocrisy here.


The vast majority of studies indicate that sexual orientation is an innate trait determined by genetics. In fact there are genetic markers which have been identified that are unique to gays. It appears that sexual diversity is a part of overall human diversity, and is not so much of a choice as Christian dogma suggests.

Your use of the word “Christian” there has me inferring that you mean the “traditional view?”

Speaking for myself only, I do believe that there are people who are “hard-wired” to be attracted to the same sex. I have no doubt. I think it is ignorant to state that all homosexuals are consciously choosing to live as such. I do, however, also believe that there are those who do make the choice to engage in homosexual behavior. Thus, I believe that sexual behavior, in part, is determined by environment.

Most interesting is that you choose the word “diversity” here – an orgasmic word to today’s Leftist that has been hijacked and made one of the key buzz terms of modern liberalism.

What sexual diversity are you talking about?

One is either sexually attracted to the same sex or not – and ninety percent are not.

I’m wondering … If ten people stood in front of you and nine were gay, would you consider it a diverse bunch?


I tell people there are three kinds of religious persons. There are the faithful who believe in the absence of facts. There are the fundamentalists who believe in spite of the facts, and there are the fanatics who set out to destroy the facts, persons and organizations who disagree with their beliefs.

This is where you lose me, Matthew, aith all due respect.

There is as much “faith” in secularism as there is in religion – whether it is the belief in God or the belief that the universe just happened to pop up by accident. Both require tremedous amounts of faith. To me, science and a belief in God are in no way contradictory, nor should they be. I disagree with those who find them mutually exclusive.

The Bible does not exist as a perfect historical record or a scientific journal. It exists as a kind of handbook for life, to be colloquial, bringing forth to humanity ethical monotheism – the laws of Almighty God.

Equally, scientific journals do not exist to teach values, morals or distinguish for humanity the differences between good and evil.

I have found that people with even the deepest faith accept the fact that with belief come doubts. More times than not, however, secularists speak with absolute certitude on matters of existence.

I am concerned with the goodness of people, and I have no reason to doubt that you, Matthew, are a good person. By virtue of the fact that your reply to my original piece was void of venom or personal attacks (unlike so many) makes me believe you are.

One question I do have for you (in the name of clarity) is: What exactly is the difference between person number one and person number two in your list of the three different types of religious people? (What differentiates those who “believe in an absence of facts” and those who “believe in spite of the facts?” They are not the same?)

Can you give an example?


The only group Jesus himself spoke out against were the hypocrites. Jesus himself said nothing about sex, or homosexuality. Peter, said some things in his writings, but this was not the same Peter who knew Jesus, but was a convert after Jesus’ death, and only heard the teachings second hand. It is likely his writings carried his own prejudices, and a distorted sense of what Jesus taught. The Bible after all was written by men and men are not perfect.

You are certainly free to interpret and postulate what Peter was thinking or doing in any way you choose. There are many, Matthew, who believe that the Torah, for instance (the five books of Moses), is the absolute word of God. Orthodox Jews, for instance. The Torah contains the vast majority of the values that Jews and Christians have lived by for millenia. Those values, I believe, come from God.

Simple. You can agree or disagree with me, but that’s from where my values are derived.

That Jesus was silent on homosexuality means what?

He was silent on child rape, too.

He didn’t mention beastiality a whole bunch either.

Jesus was an observant Jew. He adhered to the laws of Judaism. To think that he wouldn’t have believed that homosexuality was “the abomination” is disingenuous.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don’t think homosexuals are evil people or any less precious in the eyes of God than I am (or any straight).

I made it a point to keep “The Tyranny of Equality” away from religious arguments, choosing instead to focus on government intervention in places it doesn’t belong.

That’s all.

Again, many many thanks to you for a thoughtful post.

Thanks very much, Matthew.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2009


If afforded the opportunity, by a show of hands, how many would voluntarily fork over some of their hard-earned money to help pay for the weatherization of “modest income homes?” Would you be willing to hand over some of your paycheck to make sure that internet service is provided in “undeserved” areas? How about coughing up the dough to “put more scientists to work doing climate change research?” Or to “help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies?”

Assuming you would not voluntarily contribute to one or more of these outstanding ventures, no need to worry. It’ll all be taken care of. The Democrats will do it for you.

The $825 billion spending plan put together by the House Appropriations Committee – Democrat controlled, incidentally – is out and boy is it chunky. (Feel free to insert your own well-chosen adjective).

Talk about comprehensive.

Not only is there $2.4 billion allotted for “carbon capture demonstration programs,” but $1.5 billion is being set aside for expanding “good jobs in biomedical research.” Sure, there’s the predictable $20 billion for the increased funding of food stamps, $87 billion to up Medicaid funding “temporarily,” and $20 billion in health information technology to “prevent medical mistakes,” but there’s also $400 million being earmarked “to put more scientists to work doing climate change research.”

I feel better now. We’re finally headed on the right track.

Some of the other goodies include:

-$6 billion for “higher education modernization.”

-$300 million to provide rebates for people who purchase Energy Star products

-$600 million for the federal government to buy brand new energy efficient cars

-$400 million for state and local governments to buy brand new energy efficient cars

-$300 million for grants and loans to state and local governments for projects that reduce diesel emissions, “benefiting public health and reducing global warming”

-$400 million “to put more scientists to work doing climate change research”

-$1.5 billion to help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies.

What about the $600 million needed to keep button-makers across the country productive? You’d think they must already be doing a brisk business. To this day, more than two months after the election, I still see “Yes We Can” buttons on jackets, lapels and carry bags all over Manhattan. I can’t swing a dead cat without hitting something that has his name or face on it.

What about the $750 billion needed to subsidize bible manufacturers? It isn’t cheap to replace the word “Jesus” with the word “Obama,” you know.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2009


Hey, Mr. Gore .. where do you keep that Nobel Prize of yours?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2009


If not for the state of New York, one has to wonder how many blogs would actually be interesting.

The roll call here is illustrious – Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, Eliot Spitzer, Caroline Kennedy, Michael Bloomberg … so many names, so little bandwidth. Indeed, the Empire State is home to some of the greatest frivolity in the nation. Even relative newcomers like Governor David Paterson, with his proposed fat taxes and I-tunes taxes, are keeping blogger fingers rat-a-tat-tatting away.

One of my favorites is Representative Charles Rangel, the gravel-voiced dinosaur (or legend, depending on your perspective) from Harlem who once compared the Iraq War to the Holocaust. This is the same Charles Rangel who used a rent stabilized apartment in Manhattan as a campaign headquarters (a violation of the law), who was accused of using his official Congressional stationary to solicit money (also a no-no), and neglected to pay $75,000 in taxes on rental income. Did I mention his position as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee? And that he is currently under investigation from the House Ethics Committee?

Well, Mr. Rangel is back with an idea that is practically synonymous with him these days – a military draft.

Susan Crabtree from The Hill writes:

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.

Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”

Rangel’s military draft bill did create a distraction for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon after Democrats won control of Congress after the 2006 election.

In the wake of that historic victory, Pelosi said publicly that she did not support the draft and that the Democratic leadership would not back Rangel’s legislation. She also said Rangel’s legislation was not about reinstating the draft but was instead “a way to make a point” about social inequality.

From the “I Can’t Believe I’m Saying This” file … Nancy Pelosi is correct. Of course, this isn’t exactly an earth-shattering revalation. I think anyone and everyone – including Rangel himself – would concede (at least to some extent) to the overriding symbolism in calling for a reinstatement of the draft. To Rangel, the draft crusade was always about pointing out what he believed was an unjust disparity of income groups represented in the armed forces. To him, the poor, downtrodden and uneducated were overrepresented, in large part due to the lack of opportunities available to them in this country. In short, many had no choice but to sign up to participate in Rangel’s “Holocaust.”

Of course, Mr. Rangel neglects to appreciate how many of those who are currently fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan signed up after September 11, 2001 – voluntarily. He discounts those who signed on the dotted line after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 – voluntarily. He shrugs off those who willfully put their lives on the line for their country knowing what they were getting into – voluntarily.

Rangel can turn this into yet another liberal-induced class war if he chooses, or even one about race, but the fact remains that an enormous percentage of those who volunteered (and continue to do so) are not last-resort welfare recipients with no other options. Rather, their motivations rest with their love of country and desire to see evil defeated – a concept alien to many on the Left who cannot believe anyone could actually feel that way without being deceived.

These are not the educationally-challenged among us, nor the misinformed bottom-of-the-barrell societal rejects who sign up to serve, as Mr. Rangel seems to suggest they are. (Recall John Kerry’s infamous quip about the uneducated who get sent to Iraq). These are not the brainwashed or the misled. How could they possibly be? For four years, there wasn’t a car bomb that went unbroadcast, an IED that went unreported, nor a shot of someone somewhere burning an American flag that went unseen.

Still, this time around, Rangel’s folly may be raising some question marks from his own team.

uncle-sam3If a draft had been in place in 2002 when members were making the decision on whether to support the war in Iraq, Rangel has said, Congress never would have approved the war resolution, because the pressure from constituents would have been too great.

With the Iraq war off the front page and the economic crisis taking center stage, nerves are not as raw on the topic of strain on the military as they were a few years ago, so Rangel’s legislation may not make as many waves this time around.

But some Democrats — even one who supported Rangel’s efforts in the past — are a little perplexed about his plans to reintroduce the legislation, especially now that President-elect Obama is poised to take over the White House.

“That was really a political statement at the beginning of the war that we continued,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), one of only two co-sponsors of Rangel’s draft bill. “I’m not sure we’re going to do that this time.” 

Political statements aside, there are legitimate calls for a military draft that exist … and not just from crusading Left-o-crats.

Conservative Tony Blankley – Washington Times columnist, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, author, etc – in his new book American Grit makes a case for instating a mandatory two year enlistment in the military.

On Wednesday’s Michael Medved radio program, Blankley explained:

I understand right now, it wouldn’t pass. I fear that it’ll only pass after we have some tragedy that could have been avoided if we’d been properly armed. But one of the arguments that a lot of people made against the draft is you don’t want a bunch of bums who are unqualified and begrudging of the responsibility. That’s more burden than benefit in the military. I’ve had generals tell me this … My solution is a universal two-year draft.

We don’t need most of each class. Even with a fully serviced military, probably two-thirds of each class would not be needed for the military. So the military would get the first pick of the brightest, the best, the most fit, the ones without criminal records. Those are the kind of young men and women who, given any kind of responsibility, usually take to it, whether it’s in school, whether it’s in athletics, whether it’s in the working world.

I think it strengthens the army.

Right now, the volunteer army is slightly better educated, a slightly higher income then their compatriots who aren’t in, unlike in the past. But by taking the top third of each class, we would increase the quality of the troops. The remaining who weren’t picked by the military would serve two years in barracks doing civil work, helping in nursing homes and that sort of thing. They would also experience the responsibility that should come with citizenship.

I respectfully disagree with Blankley’s call for a draft.

The volunteer armed forces have strengthened, streamlined and made America’s defenses far more efficient. Today’s military consists of better trained personnel and is the greatest fighting force the world has ever known – precisely because it is a voluntary force.

The poisons infused into the American psyche beginning in the 1960s with, among other things, the demonizing the armed forces, have, sadly, become an embarrassing component of this country’s cultural landscape. Drawing from a pool of people that consist of those who readily equate President Bush to Adolf Hitler, believe the very existence of this country is a crime due to the so-called genocide of Indians and place blame for the 9/11 attacks squarely at the feet of the United States is simply not needed at this time.

burning-draft-cardBesides, if a draft were implemented, it’d be like taking a time machine back to the 1960s and early 70s.


Because the protestors of the Vietnam War overwhelmingly did so not because they genuinely cared for the North Vietnamese or human rights or whatever other altruistic reasons they claimed. They did so to avoid having to go in the military. Once Nixon ended the draft, the vast majority of war protests came to an end.

An all volunteer army is comprised of professional soldiers who overwhelmingly want to be where they are. Unless a true world-wide battle breaks out on multiple fronts that absolutely requires more bodies, I stand opposed to lefty Charles Rangel and righty Tony Blankley on the draft.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2009


I’ve been maxing out my carbon credit cards, but it doesn’t seem to be working.

It’s cold!!!


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2009


If you’ve been thinking of packing up your kit and caboodle and setting up shop in Madison, Wisconsin, you may want to hit the “pause” button on those plans – that is, if you’re a fan of personal liberty and free enterprise. If, however, your focus is one of helping to achieve “environmental sustainability,” then damn the freedom, man. Get your packing tape, load up the U-Haul, get your mail forwarded, say goodbye to that wacky neighbor who always went to the mailbox in his underwear and head to Cheese Country.

Madison, Wisconsin wants your liberty – all in the name of “climate change” – and they’re ready to make such lefty shangri-Las as Berkeley, California look almost moderate in comparison.

It’s about saving the Earth, dammit – and if the citizenry can’t see that, then the government will show them.

Jeff Poor of the Business and Media Institute says that what the city is proposing is “a case of liberalism via central planning gone wild.”

He writes:

According to the “Broad Strategies” section of a meeting agenda recently posted on the City of Madison Web site, an ordinance being considered would force city zoning to account for and mitigate climate change:

Zoning should adapt to meet the demands of climate change; use zoning to address or mitigate effects, or adapt to climate change; remove any barriers to mitigating the effects, adapting to climate change (trees, green space, mobility, renewable energy, land use).

Another item in the “Broad Strategies” section has a grim outlook for the future. It includes a proposal that spells out a doomsday scenario – allowing for the city to function should shortages in energy and food occur:

Write the code to allow the city to function when automobile travel will be severely limited and oil-related products, including food and heating fuel, become prohibitively expensive because of the scarcity and high-cost of fuel.

Other proposals throughout the document would push for use of alternative energies (solar, geothermal and wind), conservation, electric cars and urban agriculture. Other more Draconian regulations throughout the document would:

-Limit waterfront development in the name of water sustainability,

-Require two trees to be planted if one is removed from your property

-Limit the “number/density of fast food outlets and drive-through windows” in the name of public health

-Discourage individual parking options to promote public transportation usage.

I can almost hear the cadence of jackbooted horticulturalists emerging from over the hill, armed with shovels and baby Live Oaks, making sure each house has two trees in the ground.

The vagueness and unspecificity of the passage that affords the Madison nannies the ability to “write code to allow the city to function” in the event of some potentially resource-draining circumstance should scare the living hell out of anyone with a reasonably functioning circulatory system. The term “blank check” was devised to describe just such a thing.

Exactly what “code” will be written?

And precisely what will the city be allowed to do to continue to function? Seize personal property on demand? Violate personal rights? Confiscate your children and sell them on E-Bay?

And what of the right to open a business of one’s choosing? What else in the name of the new 21st Century morality – healthcare – will be limited? 

The goal here, as I have written before, must be to make sure that no one ever dies again.

There is much to pick apart and eviscerate here, but I’d like to zoom in on something that most likely would go unnoticed amidst the glut of absurdity coming from the good folks of Madison.

Madison Capitol Building

Madison Capitol Building

Liberals, you’ll have noticed, attempt to personify things to make them more accessible – thus more real.

Liberals are far too deliberate.

If one is asked to “adapt to meet the demands of climate change,” what exactly does that mean? How is that different from, say, “adapting to climate change?”

A heavier coat?

Thicker gloves?

This is no trick question. I pose this in the most literal sense.

What exactly does the phrase “to meet the demands of climate change” mean, and why was it written that way?

(To help illustrate what I’m getting at, change the phraseology by substituting “climate change” with “your boss” and try it again. If someone now suggested that you, as an employee, needed to “adapt to meet the demands of your boss,” it would probably make more sense to you, right? That’s because “your boss” is a living entity capable of “demanding” things from you).

Because “climate change” can now demand things of us, it isn’t just a matter of having to accept fluctuating weather conditions that are beyond our control. “Climate change” is now alive. It is real. It can now be dealt with.

Therefore, liberty can now be constrained for the greater good while limitations are implemented. (We’re talking the survival of Earth here). If we, as humans, can at least deal with climate change, there’s always a chance that positive developments can be affected.

If, however, it is all beyond our control, then the realization that there are things bigger than us settles in … and that is as disturbing a concept to the Left as anything.

The cartoonish idealism of silly liberty may be nice in theory, but it cannot hold a candle to preserving the habitat of the red-horned triple-beaked purple button flapper owl.

Indeed, I am aware that “demands” are placed on us all the time by things that are not specifically human. Our jobs demand things from us, for example. One can even say that certain situations demand us to behave in specific ways if particular results are desired.

But “jobs” are created by people.

The weather is not. It is beyond human control. We cannot do anything to affect it.

Welcome to the liberal mind. 

Government always knows best.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2009

camp_delta_guantanamo_bay_cuba1From the “No Way” file …

With talk radio, op-ed columns and spinning-head television all abuzz in recent days with conjecture of what the future holds for the military prison installation at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a new revelation from the Pentagon has come to light – namely, that as many as 61 former detainees have returned to terrorist activity after being released.

(jaw hits floor)

I don’t know about you, but I would have guessed the existence of Santa Claus – or clear thinking liberals – to be more of a likely prospect.

Who’d have guessed that upon discharge, the human dregs that made up the population of Gitmo would have returned to the cesspool from whence they came.

There’s just no telling what people will do.

From Reuters:

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as “returning to the fight” and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.

“This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world,” he told reporters.

Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.

As egregiously academic as it to have to make this point (but I do so knowing that I am dealing with the morally bankrupt), to allow just one of these killers – who, incidentally are not afforded the same rights as American citizens, nor should they be – to blend back into the murderous community of lowlifes that look to do as much harm to this country as possible is one person too many.

If, indeed, the closing of Gitmo is on The One’s agenda – and it almost certainly seems like it is – who can argue, with any degree of reasonability, that doing so is anything more than an act of vacuous symbolism? That to “undo” anything that is directly tied to the Bush administration carries far more weight with Big Bam than the actual practicality of keeping these dangerous killers under wraps?

Mr. Obama, what happens to these terrorists once Gitmo goes away?

Where do they go?

Are they sent to “better” facilities? Are they shipped to prisons with better human rights records?

Portugal, perhaps?

Rights advocates said the lack of details should call the Pentagon’s assertions into question.

“Until enough information is provided to allow the press and the public to verify these claims, they need to be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism,” said Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch.

Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining “the fight” because they spoke out against the U.S. government.

“The Defense Department sees that the Guantanamo detention operation has failed and they are trying to launch another fear mongering campaign to justify the indefinite detention of detainees there,” said Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the American Civil Liberties Union.

obama-and-gitmoAn important Rule of Thumb for Americans to follow is that anytime Human Rights Watch or the American Civil Liberties Union is involved, it is prudent to find out what positions they take and then support the opposite.

I find the use of the term “rights advocates” as laughable as having Cuba on the Human Right Council of the United Nations (which they are).  These organizations foster victimhood of the undeserving while ignoring those who truly are victims.

As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “Those who are kind to the cruel will often be cruel to the kind.”

Over at the Vocal Minority blog – one of my favorites – they comment on these so-called “rights advocates”:

You’re not rights advocates, OK. You’re aiders and abettors of terrorists. Of murderers. Of thugs. What about the rights of the innocents these animals have slaughtered all over the world? When have you advocated for their rights, huh?

You’re on the wrong side of morality and history, a’ight? And you’re an enemy of this country.

Verify these claims? Easy! Just read the paper! Gateway Pundit has done the courtesy of compiling a list of reports for you:

Gitmo Detainees Re-Arrested in Russia

Former Gitmo Prisoner Arrested for Terrorism in Moscow

Three Former Gitmo Detainees Held in Morocco

Former Gitmo Inmate Involved in Russian Terror Attack on Nalchik

Camel-Riding Former Gitmo Detainee Blows Himself Up

Former Gitmo Detainee Re-Arrested in Pakistan

Seven Percent of Gitmo Detainees Return to Battlefield.

Former Club Gitmo Detainee Carries Out Suicide Mission in Iraq

Say it with me: Leftists cannot be trusted with matters of national security.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2009

A precept for Americans to follow in determining what is right – appropriately dubbed “American Rule of Thumb Number One” – is to identify what consensus the rest of the world has come to on any given issue, then take the opposite position.

A second rule of thumb says that if the word “studies” is tagged onto the end of any college course, e.g., Environmental Studies, Native American Studies, Africana Studies, Toe Jam Studies, it is coming from a perspective far left of center.

Rule of Thumb Number Three says that only a leftist – in this case a Women’s Studies major – could (or would) auction off her virginity to the highest bidder to pay for school.

The bidding has reached $3.7 million.

From the UK Telegraph:

three million buck babe?Natalie Dylan, 22, claims her offer of a one-night stand has persuaded 10,000 men to bid for sex with her.

Last September, when her auction came to light, she had received bids up to £162,000 ($243,000) but since then interest in her has rocketed.

The student who has a degree in Women’s Studies insisted she was not demeaning herself.

Miss Dylan, from San Diego, California, USA, said she was persuaded to offer herself to the highest bidder after her sister Avia, 23, paid for her own degree after working as a prostitute for three weeks.

I am, for a moment, looking at this from a perspective that assumes (for the sake of discussion) this is acceptable. (I am a father of twin daughters, and whatever libertarian inclinations I may harbor on various issues, I cannot even begin to find this anything short of loathsome). It boggles the brain to think that someone would pay three million dollars to have sex with a virgin.

Three million??????

Even the New York Yankees wouldn’t pay $10 million a year for a “can’t miss” pitching prospect who has never thrown a pitch in the Major Leagues. (Remember, baseball players under contract, even when “cut,” still get paid).

For some perspective …

A pair of red ruby slippers used in the movie The Wizard of Oz worn by Judy Garland sold for $666,000.

A 35-pound bejeweled “eagle cape” worn by Elvis Presley sold for $85,000.

The famous hand-painted drum skin that is seen on the sleeve of the Beatles’ 1967 album “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” sold for $1.1 million.

She said she had had a lot of attention from a wide range of men, including “weirdos”, “those who get really graphically sexual about what they want to do to me” and “lots of polite requests from rich businessmen”.

Miss Dylan said she did not think it was particularly significant to be willing to sell your virginity and insisted that she was happy to undergo medical tests for any doubters.


If Miss Dylan is willing to murder her self-respect by auctioning off her virginity to the “best man,” why is it “weird” for someone who is willing to lay down millions of dollars to inquire as to how much bang he gets for his buck (pun intended).

And as a side bar … for those (particularly university types) who believe that the differences between men and women are negligible, or are predominately constructs of a society marred by patriarchal conditioning, I would like to ask if there is anyone who believes that the response to take away the virginity of a 22 year old would be just as frenzied if the virgin was a young man?

I was going to make a comment about how proud her parents must be of both her and her sister.

Why bother?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2009

Honeymoon on our minds

Honeymoon, here we come!

I received this via e-mail with the following subject line:

“There is no one alive who should ever question the courage of a soldier again.”

I found this picture interesting. I thought I’d share. I’ll leave it at that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2009

Golda Meir famously said, “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.”

I am not sure I could ever beckon whatever it would take to forgive someone who murdered my children, but the point is well taken.

In Gaza, so the story goes, the ground is full. There is no more room in the cemeteries there to bury the dead. It is a story both unsettling and tragic – assuming it is true.

For me, not being moved by the death of innocents would be – in my humble opinion – less than human.

However, allow me to be as clear as possible.

Each and every death of an innocent in the ongoing battle between Israel and Hamas rests completely – unequivocally – with the murderous terrorist organization, Hamas. Indeed, the majority of the dead in Gaza are military personnel. However, where innocents have been killed – particularly as a result of the dastardly and disgusting practice of using people as shields, or civilian residences as weapons storage facilities – the blame in totality belongs with the vermin who sparked the current conflict by firing thousands of missiles into Israel.

And yet, somehow, most of the world continues to excoriate the tiny little Jewish state by the Mediterranean for defending itself. There can be no better example of how backward a large portion of humanity is than the planet-wide condemnation of Israel. Much of the world press – with its inherent anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and unwillingness to not only confront evil but its inability to  identify it – eagerly broadcasts and publishes endless images of bloodied Palestinian civilians and pulverized buildings in Gaza, complete with soul-wrenching, heart-stomping tales of destroyed families and missing children.

One caption under a picture of dead bodies in Gaza, posted at the Times Online reads:

Gaza FuneralSeven members of the Salha family were killed in an Israeli airstrike on their home. Many families are unable to bury their dead properly because of the hostilities.

Just for good measure, on the right side of the Times Online webpage, there is a frightening picture a man running with a bloody infant in his arms.

Nope. No bias there.

Here’s my news flash …

Save for the genuinely innocent, I have not a scintilla of compassion for the dead in Gaza.

The article reads:

To the traumatised Palestinians of the Gaza Strip it is bad enough that their friends and relatives are being killed in such numbers – more than 900 at the last count. What is worse is that they can no longer give them proper funerals. In northern Gaza, because the Eastern cemetery is no longer accessible, the bereaved are having to search for plots between the existing graves in the older, full-up cemeteries to bury their loved ones, or to reopen and reuse the graves of their forebears.

There is no mention in this particular article (nor in hundreds like it) – not one – of the reason why Israel is attacking the Gaza Strip. (Surprise, surprise) There is not even a passing reference to the thousands of missiles fired into Israel from Gaza that initiated this latest round of kick-ass.

Not that I expected there would be.

A blogger called Ozzy at the Times Online typifies the cancer that is moral equivalency with this brilliant comment:

war is terrible, but i guess in order for there to be peace there has to be war… that’s what history says, human are always going to repeat the same pattern if they don’t ever try to learn from their mistakes. sadly there are plenty of people who would ignore that for the sake of their cult.

I agree that peace is achieved through victory.

But this oatmeal-spine way of thinking – like most liberal thought on matters of security – is embarrassingly childish. Victory does not ensure that all evil is defeated – and because that is the case, it does not automatically negate the necessity of fighting when it is called for. Winning a war does not mean there will be no more wars. Rather, victory ensures that a specific evil is defeated at a given time, e.g., defeating the Nazis in World War II (but still needing to fight the Communists in Korea or the Islamo-Fascists in the current “War on Terror.”)

That war is “terrible,” does not mean it is unnecessary.

Naivety, thy name is liberalism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »