Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for March, 2009


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2009


Is there a word more overused – or rather, misused than “hypocrite?” Somehow, worse than almost anything else that a human being can do or be, there is practically nothing that can compare morally, or is as downright ugly or unforgivable as being a hypocrite. Once that label has been given to someone, it clings insistently, like being labeled a racist, a homophobe or an environmental crusader (which, by the way, carries more weight than being a hypocrite, as I will explain momentarily).

Without equivocation, I despise genuine hypocrisy as much as anyone. With equal fervor, however, I hate seeing the excessive maltreatment of the word by people who don’t know how to make a cohesive and substantive argument otherwise. Governor Sarah Palin is a strong and steadfast conservative, and the very fact that her teenage daughter became pregnant out of wedlock and has since “broken up” with the baby’s father has propelled the laptop hammering left into action. Liberal blogs everywhere have unleashed on the Palins, attacking them incessantly as hypocrites.

So much for the party of compassion.

The distinction needs to be made between being inconsistent and being a downright hypocrite. Indeed, I have done things – as has each and every human being in existence – that are inconsistent with my values. It is intrinsic to being the flawed creatures we are. To veer away from paths we know are wrong for us, or are contrary to personal convictions, is not always possible.

That’s the way it is.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce you to the human being. I’d like to introduce you to inconsistency.

To be inconsistent does not mean the value system being compromised is invalid. It means that human beings are not perfect. Unfortunately, the ever-adamant smear merchants who exist in the blogosphere and elsewhere are quick to pounce on a human failing and run with it. If a flaw exists in someone, they reason, then all of the positions and advocacies associated with that person must also be contradictory. By that logic, if someone robs a convenience store knowing that theft is against the law, the law is invalid and should then be repealed.

Sometimes, the strength of a good message cannot adequately dissuade the bad behavior of those that wish to adhere to it. An evangelist, for instance, who weakens and seeks out sexual pleasure outside of marriage could be called inconsistent (and certainly an adulterer), despite all the good he does preaching to the contrary.

If, for the sake of argument, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, during the time of his addiction to pain killers, continued to speak passionately about the evils of doing drugs, as he always had, but instead of trying to deal with the addiction and admit his weakness, tried to rationalize his narcotic use on the air and get himself off the hook with his listeners, wouldn’t that be indicative of more than sheer inconsistency? In other words, if Rush played the “It’s okay for me, but not for you” card, wouldn’t that be a true hypocrite?

I think a good case can be made for it.

As I alluded to earlier, as much as the word “hypocrite” will stick with someone once the label is given, to be called an environmentalist crusader will trump even that.

Climate Lord Al Gore, forever saturated in his tempest of carbon credits and looming global disaster, is the text-book definition of a hypocrite – complete with his fossil-fuel burning jets that whisk him around the world, his home that consumes more energy in a month than some entire neighborhoods, and his quickness to tell everyone else to curb their own energy consumption while spreading the word to the four corners that saving the planet is the greatest battle of our time. That goes way beyond inconsistent. In his case, it is truly a case of, “It’s okay for me, but not for you.”

In the case of the pregnancy of young Bristol Palin there was not so much as a hint of, “This is okay for me, but not for you.”

How ironic it is, in this case, that if the pregnancy would have been terminated, the left would not have given a second thought for the child that was killed, but would have spent all its time going on and on about hypocrisy of the act – and would have actually been correct this time.


Posted in American culture, Conservatism, Ethics, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2009


Liberals always feel better about themselves – like they’ve righted some dastardly wrong – when they spare the offended among us any more undue hurt by changing the names of things they deem objectionable and unseemly. After all, the societal goal of today’s Leftocrat is to make sure that no one – outside of conservatives – is ever offended at any time for any reason. On the liberal hit parade of bugbears and pariahs, “Do Not Offend” is a perennial top-five smash.

In the curious mind of today’s liberal (or should I say progressive) there is hardly anything worse, outside of putting a Wal-Mart in New York City, than being offended. Long-used terminology that is not meant to be in any way pejorative is now offensive. Thus, in the ongoing Age of Political Correctness, “crippled” has become “physically challenged” and “retarded” has morphed into “mentally handicapped.” This is the same mindset that will have us calling the dead “living impaired,” and liars “ethically discombobulated” before too long. Of course, these adorable little non-abrasive labels don’t change the fact that an individual who is crippled is still crippled, or that someone who is mentally retarded is still retarded.

We just don’t call it that.

The word “retarded” is ugly – or should I say “cosmetically distinctive.”

“Crippled” sounds judgmental somehow, and liberals despise judgments – unless it is against a conservative and his dazzling array of archaic, bigoted, multi-phobic positions.

Remember, liberal bigotry fosters unity.

This word-swapping makes libs feel better – and that is precisely what sits at the heart of all liberal policy, feelings. Truth is, at best, secondary, and problem-solving almost always translates into increased funding and/or decreased freedoms. Equality trumps liberty. Indeed, if “Thou Shalt Not Offend” were one of God’s commandment, then some of that judgmental religious stuff so “offensive” to progressives might be more palatable. If it were in the Bill of Rights – Congress Shall Make No Law That Offends Any Portion of the Electorate – the slave-owning Founding Fathers might be less abhorrent to today’s campus cacklers and multi-cultural warriors.

It is this metastasizing idiocy that has prompted the Obamacrats to stop using the phrase “Global War On Terror,” adopted by the Bush Administration after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and instead use the ever-loving, less-offensive, not-so-war-sounding “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

It almost sounds like a good will operation or a free cheese drive.

Last week, Fox News reported:

Critics have pleaded with the Obama administration to abandon the use of “Global War on Terror” because they say it mischaracterizes the nature of the enemy and its abilities.

The fact that enemy has attacked and murdered innocents all over the world hasn’t clouded Obamacrat thinking. Only a leftist can “mischaracterize” thousands and thousands of dead innocents at the hands of murderous terrorists across the globe.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms the change.

From Reuters:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped “war on terror” from its lexicon, rhetoric former President George W. Bush used to justify many of his actions.

“The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously,” Clinton told reporters traveling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his “global war on terror.”

The phrase was strongly criticized by human rights groups who said it was used to justify many actions, such as the opening of the Guantanamo Bay prison for detainees held without trial at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba.

Internationally, the phrase was seen by critics as a “with-us-or-against-us” philosophy, overly dependent on military force and what many Muslims decried as an attack on Islam.

A red flag should reflexively unfurl when the words “human rights groups” are used. In the same way “peace activists” really don’t advocate peace, human rights groups don’t give a damn about genuine human rights.

To these folks, the greatest war-mongers, perpetrators of evil and offenders of human rights in the world is the United States of America.

Perhaps the next foreign policy initiative of the Obama administration will be to request detailed reports from leaders around the world enumerating not only those things that America currently does that are offensive, but of things not to do in the future, lest our actions antagonize and disoblige anyone else.

In other news, God help us.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 28, 2009

ban me. i'm killing you.

ban me. i'm killing you.

No, seriously.

The State of California could be – I say, could be – the first state in the union to ban black cars.

And why, pray tell, would the Golden State do such a thing?

To save the earth, of course.

There’s no word as to whether there are plans to ban Oakland Raiders jerseys, the outside of Oreo cookies or black people.

Michael Arrington at writes:

The California legislature is considering regulating the color of cars and reflectivity of paint to reduce the energy requirements to cool them. A presentation on the proposed legislation by the California Air Resources Board is below.

The problem isn’t the color per se, but the reflectivity of the paint overall. And dark colors just don’t reflect well, so they are likely out. “Jet black remains an issue,” says the report.

The concern is that air conditioners in darker colored vehicles need to work harder than those in lighter ones.

If automobile air conditioners are working harder, that means more planet-funkifying ugliness is being fed into the atmosphere. And if more ugliness is being recklessly fed into the atmosphere, that  means a veritable cauldron of eco-system destroying manmade death is in store.

And that’s not good at all.

Anyone who’s ever entered a very hot car knows that it can be cooled down immediately by driving a few feet with the windows open, effectively neutralizing any color-caused heat issues before engaging the air conditioner. But whatever, black is evil.

The new regulations would be phased in beginning in 2012, so if you want that black car, you better buy it soon.

And you thought that black Toyota Pious you bought made you such a good person. Think again, you tree hating energy slob.

Isn’t liberty – California style – grand?

And for those who will ask if I should have waited until April 1st to post this blog entry, don’t bother.

I’m not making it up.

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 28, 2009


For a while, I was concerned that some of the tax dollars being yanked from my paycheck to help fund the $787 billion stimulus pig-meat package were going to frivolous projects. In the run up to its passage, I spent a substantial amount of time (and space) on this blog hurling invectives at the plan. I chastised, criticized, denounced, excoriated and otherwise condemned the Obama pork-o-rama stimulus bill up one side and down the other.

My mantra was “waste.”

I sang it from the rooftops.

Like so many on my side of the aisle, I pointed out and enumerated, in abundance, just how much of the Big Bam Pig Meat Plan had absolutely nothing to do with stimulus. I felt it was my duty, and I served the conservative movement well.

Sure, I scoffed as much as the next blogger at some of the things located therein.

But when I found earlier today that some of my hard-earned tax dollars would be going to help curtail suicides in Akron, Ohio, I knew I had been out of line.

After all, if I can assist in making suicidal bridge leaping that much more difficult by simply electing an over-spending, Marxist-like, pork barrel Big Cheese, I can sleep easier at night. It would bring the same kind of satisfaction as knowing that my bucks are helping to make some housing project somewhere more environmentally friendly.

Now that’s stimulus.


From the website:

One man jumped to his death off the All-America Bridge this year.

Two more used the Akron bridge — more commonly known as the Y-Bridge — to commit suicide in 2008.

Akron hopes to curtail future deaths on what has been dubbed ”Suicide Bridge” by installing a fence.

The controversial fencing — some have been pushing for it, while others think it’s a waste of money — was among the local projects the state approved Thursday for federal stimulus funds.

”It just makes a safer Akron for everybody,” said Robert Conley, who has been urging the fencing since his son, Kevin, jumped off the bridge to his death in 2006.

I don’t wish what Mr. Conley has gone through on anyone.

But let’s be serious for a moment.

Building a fence makes Akron safer for everybody? Since the beginning of 2008, three people have ended their lives by jumping off this bridge.  Indeed, I was (and still am) opposed to the Obama spendulous package. But were there no other projects that warranted more attention than this? Something that would be a benefit to more people in Akron?

I can see the e-mails now:

Roman, you cold-hearted bastard! How can you be so flip about suicide?

-You son of a bitch! Only a heartless right-wing Nazi would equate suicide with windmill powered door buzzers.

Before the Connecticut Working Families Party sends out their bus-filled harassment squads to my house, like they did to the AIG executives, let me be clear.

This is not about suicide. To be opposed to using so-called federal “stimulus” money to build a fence on a bridge where people have leapt to their deaths does not, by default, mean that one is in favor of people killing themselves. It does not mean the act is any less tragic or hurtful. It is a non sequitir. It is an intellectually dishonest argument.

What about those who take their own lives by overdosing on pills? Do we outlaw medications?

How about those who hang themselves? Do we regulate the sale of rope or other potentially neck-breaking materials?

And those who slit their wrists? Should the federal government enforce strict razor blade legislation?

Why not just close down the bridge?

As one blogger at put it:


A fence will only stop people from jumping off that bridge! What about the two others that you can see from the Y bridge???

A fence doesn’t save suicidal people….their family/friends do.

This is only about wasteful spending – and atrociously wasteful spending, at that.

This is not a federal issue.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 27, 2009


The word “freedom” is falling on hard times these days – and with the unprecedented expansion of government eroding personal liberties, and the incessant pounding of “government is the answer” into the collective skulls of Americans, it is not difficult to see why.

The short answer is – too many Americans have become too complacent too quickly and have forgotten that one can only take liberty for granted if it is already theirs. It is only with this languid mindset that words like “freedom” and “liberty” become enchantingly rustic and impractical – at least among the frightfully nuanced. Indeed, with the coming of the Messianic Age in Washington, it simply isn’t a marketable brand right now – neither here nor abraod.

Since the 20th of January, it’s not “freedom” that is being sold to the American people; it’s the ostensible healing power and problem-solving adeptness of the state.


As New York Post writer Tom Topousis says, “Freedom is Out of Fashion.”

At least it is at Ground Zero in New York.

You may recall that on September 11, 2001, Ground Zero was created by murderous terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in an act of war, killing nearly 3,000 innocents.

It was in all the papers.

For reasons that still befuddle me, the decision was made not to rebuild the towers. Yes, I was among those flag-waving, brazen, fist-pumping “rah-rah U-S-A” simpletons who thought that rebuilding them, perhaps one story taller, would have been the right thing to do. Instead, a new single tower was proposed and (eventually) agreed upon by all of the sniveling quibblers involved. This new tower would be the tallest building in the United States – measuring a patriotic 1,776 feet – and it would be called the “Freedom Tower.”

Eight years on from the attacks of 9/11, not only is there nothing rising from the hole that still sits in lower Manhattan, but the building that has yet to be built doesn’t even have its name anymore.

It will now be called – hold on to your hats (insert drum roll here) – “One World Trade Center.”

That sound you hear are the chills attacking my spine.

Tom Topousis of the New York Post writes:

Once hailed as a beacon of rebirth in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the Freedom Tower has been stripped of its patriotic name — which has been swapped out for the more marketable “One World Trade Center,” Port Authority officials conceded yesterday.

More than seven years after the terror attacks and amid an effort to market the tower to international tenants, sentiment gave way to practicality.

“As we market the building we will ensure that the building is presented in the best possible way,” said PA Chairman Anthony Coscia.

“One World Trade Center is its address. It’s the address that we’re using. It’s the one that’s easiest for people to identify with, and, frankly, we’ve gotten a very interested and warm reception to it.”

There is no one more pro-capitalism and pro-free market than the author of this blog, but this is, frankly, sad – and telling. That the dropping of the word “freedom” suddenly makes the building attractive to businesses – particularly international tenants – is disturbing … but entirely predictable.

(“Citizen of the World” meter on).

The name “One World Trade Center” is indubitably accommodating and welcoming – to everyone from everywhere!

“Freedom Tower,” by contrast, is isolationist, xenophobic, presumptuous and jingoistic.

(“Citizen of the World” meter off).

The New York Post sums it up appropriately with it’s sub-headline: “Money Trumps Patriotism.”

With every fiber of my being, I want the new building – whatever it will be called – to be profitable. It want it to teem with business. I want money to pour from its ventilation system and I hope it is disgustingly lucrative. I want every business who sets up shop in it to be able to give its executives $100 million bonuses without the fear of Barney Frank’s Buck-Busting Brigades roaring in. (Right now, only government entities have pledged to move in to the tower).

In all honesty, the greater issue here isn’t whether or not the name “Freedom Tower” is a good one. This isn’t even about the name. Rather, it is about the symbolism in dropping the word “freedom.” 

The question is … does this really matter all that much?

To me (and many others), it does. Symbolic as it may be, symbolism matters.

It serves to remind us of the core values we hold sacred. It helps us to recognize those institutions and traditions that define us.

The idea that the word “freedom” is perceived as an impediment to success speaks volumes.

Welcome to 2009.

From The New York Post:

Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles Burlingame was the pilot aboard American Airlines Flight 77 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon, said the renaming of the tower is one more example that the nation is forgetting 9/11.

“If we can’t say the word freedom out loud, God help us,” she said.

“I understand the decision from a marketing point of view. But it saddens me that it’s no longer economically viable to declare who we are.”


Incidentally, “Statue of Liberty” is equally quaint.

How about the “Statue of Equality?”

Or the “Stautue of a Big Green Chick on a Pedestal?”

Posted in New York City, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 26, 2009


I want to take a moment and pay tribute to a man I knew and to whom I owe a great deal. His name is George Weber, and he was murdered this past weekend here in New York City. His killing has made national news – as have the lurid details of the circumstances that led up to his death.

Words fail me – and I want so very much not to sound cliché and trite.

I think George deserves that.

I knew him, and as anyone can attest to who has had someone in their own lives cut down in such a senseless manner, it is difficult to comprehend. It is even more difficult to sort out and make sense of.

Surreal is too weak a word.

Indeed, while the news media, expectedly, has been consumed with his grizzly demise, I have been peppered with memories – some that trigger instantaneous smiles, others that lure me into extended periods of thought. Yet, that, too, sounds so “off-the-rack” and contrived.

I think George deserves better than that.

So, seeing as how I am already disgusted with the tabloid-like coverage of his death – and seeing as this man was far more than just a name attached to a gruesome killing – I wanted to put something positive out there.

George Weber was a radio man. And a damn good one. Indeed, he was “a news guy,” as he famously called himself.

But he was more than that.

He was unique and remarkably talented – a non “big voice” news anchor and reporter with impressive big time skills – a consummate journalist who had news shooting from his pores.

His style was conversational. He was not the typical “top of the hour” voice from above. Rather, he was the voice from next to you. He was clearly one of the big boys, but exuded approachability. To his great credit, he truly was. His delivery was smooth, and he was very easy on the ears. His instincts were unparalleled and his ability to engage the listener – as if he were sitting with you at the dinner table – was uncanny. He was informative, but never sounded like he was reading from a script. True, he had a wonderfully, warm voice, and his reports were always remarkably substantive, but his delivery was his hook. It was that natural everyday-guy style that brought him from small-town Pennsylvania into the big leagues in relatively short order – including stops in Denver, San Francisco and finally, New York.

Indeed, he was a skilled writer and had a wonderful cadence in his reports, but he also had the ear of a producer, a veritable master at incorporating audio into his segments, drawing the listener into the story.

He was at Ground Zero covering the story when the second tower fell on September 11, 2001. For a while, it wasn’t clear whether George survived the collapse. When he finally called into WABC, it was some of the most compelling radio I have ever heard.

There was nowhere else he would rather have been.

That’s what he did.

The truth is … we weren’t especially close. We certainly were not best friends or anything. However, I was fortunate enough to spend several months working with him and had the privilege of having several long conversations with him during that window of time when our paths crossed. I had spent several years in small and mid-market radio when I began an apprenticeship with him at WABC in New York. I wanted to sharpen my skills and learn from the best in the hopes of furthering my own career. Indeed, I had met plenty of radio people in my day, but George was the first person I had met who was as passionate about radio as me. Even more so.

Many I had encountered along the way professed their love for the medium, but George lived and breathed radio – a cliche, yes. But entirely accurate.

He was, literally, a mentor, a teacher, and one of the warmest people I have ever had the honor of associating with. Luckily, we had progressed from a teacher-student relationship to reaching the point of calling each other every once in a while just to see how things were. In fact, if not for George Weber, I would never have gotten my job at Sirius Satellite Radio.

He was as unselfish as anyone I ever met in a medium filled with inflated egos, prima-donnas and hacks.

His voice was as familiar as anyone’s – not only here in New York, but also in Denver, San Francisco, Los Angeles and in his home state of Pennsylvania. He was as dedicated as he was good.

As for the New York leg of his career, he spent a dozen years at WABC (770AM) where he was an integral part of the “Curtis and Kuby” radio program as the “news guy” (Curtis Sliwa – conservative, Ron Kuby – ultra-liberal) giving us the stories we’d be “talking about all day.”

The events of last weekend have brought to light a private side of George Weber that, obviously, the rest of us were not meant to know about. The story will continue to unfold and the heartbreak of his family and friends will be exacerbated as details continue to find their way into news casts and blogs everywhere.

Grieving is hard enough.

The man who once reported on the biggest stories around is now the story.

Whatever demons George may have had secretly, he certainly did not deserve to have his life ended in such a horrific manner. He had a lot more to give.

From one radio guy to another … thanks, George.

I wish we could have talked more – especially about radio. I wish we could have worked together more than we did.

You were good.

Rest in Peace, my friend.

Posted in New York City, radio | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 26, 2009


As inconceivable as it may seem, one must presume that there will come a time during Barack Obama’s tenure as President when all of the maladies and woes of the nation are no longer blamed on George W. Bush. Admittedly, it’s an incredible assumption, but somewhere along the line, Obama’s “watch” will have to officially get underway in earnest and he’ll have to start assuming responsibility without the benefit of qualifiers. Saying the buck stops with him is fine, but doing so with schoolyard grace, pointing fingers, crying, “It was him! It was him!” is hardly the mark of sound leadership. It’s not even the mark of Eddie Haskell. It is beyond comical how often the leader of the free world makes it a point to remind the American people of the things he has “inherited” from the previous administration and how “the previous eight years” (if you are to buy into his abracadabra) were the worst to befall humanity, perhaps ever.

One thing is for certain … his teleprompter can beat up George W. Bush’s.

However, his familiarly flanking, just-off-camera, electronic cue cards were missing in action on Tuesday. Instead, the President relied on a more traditional over-sized monitor, which loomed like Michael Moore over a canned ham in the back of the room while he carefully – colorlessly – ran through his libretto.

Tuesday night’s press conference had all the spirit and tone of a scabbed over blood blister. The President wasn’t especially bad, nor did he set the world on fire. And while it wouldn’t be particularly original or insightful to say that President Obama is still in “campaign mode” – which, incidentally, he clearly is (even though he seems to be abandoning so much of what he originally campaigned on), it may be more useful to suggest that he is fully entrenched in “lack of leadership mode.”

Or “what the hell am I doing here mode”

Or “can I just eat my waffle mode.”

Even long-frothing supporters and pundits who were expecting Superman to explode from the booth by now are wondering, “Is this it?” Last night, he was just … there. Not exactly messianic. Not especially celestial. He was cautious and relatively uninteresting. As many have already remarked, he was agonizingly professorial, styling himself as a bit above everyone else’s pay grade, all the while competing with the stenographer pads for most interesting inanimate object in the room (if you count out the big monitor).

He went on about healthcare in that droning leftist style, ignored the troops currently in harm’s way, answered almost nothing, and dazzled the numb-skulled believers.

Bam couldn’t exactly jump on the Barney Frank “get me their names” bandwagon or the “tax those executive bastards at 90%” train (as much as he probably wanted to) because it wouldn’t have played well now that the government is entering the toxic fund buy up business with the “private sector.” He had to lay off a bit. After all, what is more paramount to a leaping lib’s agenda than keeping the image of an ever-helpful, benevolent, problem-solving, “you’ve got a friend” federal government in tact?

The laugh of the night, of course, came when the President was asked why it took him so long to express outrage over the bonuses received by AIG executives.

The correct answer would have been, “Because I was not told to do so by my teleprompting team.”

His actual answer was, “It took a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.”

Please, fill in your own punch line to that one.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 24, 2009

didn't see the yellow line

didn't see the yellow line

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 21, 2009


Clearly, I’m in the minority on this one – even among conservatives – but this entire AIG bonus “scandal” is absolutely meaningless to me, inasmuch as I am not outraged, disgusted, bothered or in any way troubled by the payout of these bonuses. That this is considered some kind of a moral stain upon the American landscape or is portrayed by the cackling masses as a world-class ignominy is far more disturbing than the supposed “disgrace” these bonuses have brought upon the face of a nation purportedly consumed with indignation.

This entire thing is a farce of the highest order.

Because I am aware of the facts, and because I am not a class warrior, and because I have a firm grasp on reality, and because I can put into perspective the fact that contractually obligated retention bonuses of $165 million dollars make up an infinitesimal percentage of the entire bailout money given to AIG, I find the entire spectacle – including the entire surreal neo-McCarthy like hearings on Capitol Hill this week – a complete embarrassment. (Of course, there was truth in what McCarthy was claiming).

I cannot think of a grander waste of time than to hear noodle-brained pundit after noodle-brained pundit – on both sides of the aisle – talk about the outrage being generated all across the nation by these bonus payments.

On top of that, listening to a mush-mouthed United States congressman demand “the names” of those who have not been intimidated or frightened enough into returning the bonus money on their own is both scary and surreal – and beyond reprehensible. If not for these bona-fide morons making the AIG executives in question out to be worse than Joseph Stalin, I wouldn’t have never even expended a batting lash on it.

However, what is entirely meaningful to me is watching the painful and destructive Obama-promised transformation of my country take place before my very eyes. The inner-Marxist that lurks deep within the American liberal is emerging – unchecked and unfettered, and it isn’t pretty.

If there is a disgrace, it is in how this Democrat-controlled White House and Congress operate.

The truth is, the “bailout” money – in all of its Marxist glory – should have never been handed out to begin with, and the fact that the trillions of dollars being poured into pointless, careless pig-meat projects aren’t drawing nearly as much animus as this piddly little AIG non-story epitomizes how backwards the value system in this country is among the knee-jerks and the reactionaries. It’s class warfare at its liberally-fomented finest. True, taxpayer bucks were dished out to a company that should have been allowed to fail, but the unmitigated gall of these Capitol Hill sky pilots to dictate after the fact how this money was to be used when they are the ones who authorized the payment of these bonuses is categorically contemptible. There were no provisions. There were no strings. There wasn’t a single stipulation attached to the money.

And what makes this all the more detestable is that these weren’t even performance bonuses. This entire witch hunt would actually make more sense if these were performance bonuses. They were pre-bailout contracts made between AIG and employees who were being asked to stay on with the company through a critical business cycle, knowing the future was not particularly bright.

Hence, the term “retention bonus.”

The fact that some of these executives are actually giving back the money they rightfully earned in living up to their end of the contract is truly remarkable – and worthy of praise.

And the thing is … The Washington big boys knew that AIG planned on fulfilling their obligations to these people when they were given their slice of bailout pie. There were no surprises.

And now, because of “public outcry,” the House of Representatives has passed a bill (328-93) that would tax this bonus money at a rate of 90%, with a Senate vote to follow next week – all meant to teach these greedy, piggish, money-hungry bastards a lesson…

.. and to show who is really boss.

This is like granting your child permission to go to the 11:00 PM movie, knowing that his curfew is midnight, then punishing him when he comes homes at 1:00 AM.

According to Bloomberg:

The House bill passed yesterday would affect employees earning more than $250,000 who received bonuses from companies that received more than $5 billion in aid from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

“These people are getting away with murder,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York. “They’re getting paid for the destruction they’ve caused to our communities.”

give me the names!

give me the names!

In short, the Congress of the United States has dipped into its Politburo bag-o-tricks and begun targeting its private citizenry with mob-rules legislation. While death threats against AIG executives fly, and Congressman Barney Frank asks for the names of these threatened private citizens to be released publicly, and bus tours of AIG executives’ homes are being put together by the Connecticut Working Families Party, Leftocrats applaud a job well done.

And yet, time and time again, conservatives are attacked as “Nazis” or “fascists.”  They are represented and portrayed as the ones who demand control of American lives. Conservatives are the totalitarians, according to the Left. Libs whine about conservatives wishing to intrude on the private affairs of Americans, but promote the nationalization of health care, the expansion of government influence (and control) into the private sector, and support doing away with private union votes. Libs decry the imposition of conservative values on liberty loving citizens, but demand that taxpayer dollars be used to pay for abortions (both domestically and abroad) and fund unproven controversial stem cell science. They say conservatives want the power to inflict their beliefs on everyone, but insist that Americans accept same-sex marriage, and agree to the distribution of condoms to high school students on demand. Libs moan incessantly about the so-called violation of civil rights due to the Patriot Act, but go after private citizens who lawfully receive bonus money through expo-facto legislation, stirring the anger of the American public to the point that death threats are being levied at these innocent people.

The assault against American individualism continues.

And as far as Congressman Charlie Rangel is concerned, if I may address him directly …

How deliciously ironic of you to proclaim that anyone is “getting away with murder.” I have to assume you know both the pot and the kettle. These AIG executives were getting paid because they were contractually entitled to that money. Period. Have you forgotten that the provision for paying these bonuses was written into the stimulus bill that your party ran through Congress last month? Have you forgotten that it was signed into law by the President of the United States? Surely, this little detail hasn’t escaped you – like paying your taxes did or forgetting that you can’t use your rent-stabilized apartments in New York to run campaigns.

Silly, Charlie.

These obligations existed long before you and your party helped to create the current financial mess we are in now by compelling financial institutions to offer mortgages to people who simply could not afford them.

Silly facts.

If ever there was scandal that wasn’t a scandal, this is it.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2009

It’s interesting.

I’ve received a ton of e-mails this morning asking me if I plan on commenting on Barack Obama’s tasteless “Special Olympics” crack on last night’s edition of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Apparently, while speaking with Jay about his bowling prowess (or lack thereof), the President remarked that he wasn’t particularly happy with his score of 129. Said the President, “It was like the Special Olympics or something.”

I say “apparently,” because I haven’t seen it. All of the information I am receiving about this appearance with Leno is coming through e-mails. I don’t watch The Tonight Show, so I wasn’t familiar with the incident.

I say “apparently” also because I don’t know that it actually happened. I can’t just arbitrarily comment on something being conveyed through e-mails without proof of some kind. I need corroboration before I start opining.

How could this have really happened when none of the major news outlets seem to be reporting on this?

The New York Times and the Washington Post are silent on the matter.

(Someone tell those crickets to pipe down!)


I’m actually flipping through web pages right now looking to see if …

Oh wait … Here’s one!

I see “Obama Makes a Late-Night Gaffe” on the CNN website, off to the right under “Latest News,” buried in a long list of links.

How adorable.


Nothing about denigrating the handicapped, just a cute little link that says “Gaffe.”


I see the same thing on MSNBC. It says “Video:Gaffe” underneath the headline “Obama Stunned By AIG bonuses,” which is underneath an even bigger headline “Obama offers Iran ‘new beginnings.

Haystack, meet needle.

I guess it really did happen.

If this were President Bush, how many stories of outraged advocates for the handicapped demanding an apology would we have seen by now? How many stories of little Peggy Jones from Bootlick, New Jersey who has been in a wheelchair since the age of three, wondering why her President is making fun of her and everyone like her, would we have had to stomach on CNN and MSNBC?

In all candor, while the remark was entirely inappropriate – and yet another attestation of how lost this man is without his electronic cue cards – the point is not to crucify the President for a foolish remark, which it was. Rather, the point is to continue to touch upon the egregious media bias and protectionism that still surrounds the President.

As I wrote yesterday, given the President’s boo-boo-filled, less-than-impressive first two-months in office, it’s not difficult to imagine how he would be treated were he a Republican.

Picture George W. Bush making the same remark about the “Special Olympics” on a late-night talk show. Beside the fact that he would have been skewered for the cheap political ploy of going on The Tonight Show while the worst “financial crisis since the Great Depression” continued to grip the nation, the feeding frenzy that would have followed the “Special Olympics” quip would have made a gang of starving sharks look like nap-time at the retirement home.

Really, could Mr. Obama’s appearance on The Tonight Show been any less presidential if it had to be?

Maybe Leno should have booked the teleprompter.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 19, 2009

It’s only been fifty-eight days.

Without the benefit of having a “D” following the President’s name, how much of what the Messiah has done thus far would have drawn relentless fire and criticism from the backpocket mainstream media and its Leftocrat bedfellows?

How much of The Chosen One’s actions as the Chief Executive would have already been picked apart, chewed to bits and spit out by the Obamacratic minions?

Recall the beating George W. Bush took as President – attacked mercilessly on everything from his ability to speak intelligibly to his intelligence – and compare it to the performance of Big Bam.

Just imagine if Barack Obama were a Republican and had the same track record.

From elevating a tax cheat to a cabinet position,
to publicly announcing war strategies to our enemies,
to suggesting that America needs to reach out to moderate terrorists,
to unprecedented levels of pork-barrel non-stimulus stimulus spending,
to lying about earmarks,
to squawking about financial responsibility while proposing a $3.6 trillion-dollar budget,
to criticizing the previous administration’s $2.9 trillion in deficits only to project doubling the national debt in ten years,
to grossly expanding government influence and control into the private sector,
to promising no lobbyists in his administration while having several,
to overturning proven Bush-era policies that have kept this nation safe in a time of war,
to announcing the closing of our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,
to suggesting that wounded soldiers pay for their own care,
to declaring that a recession was not the time for corporations to make profits,
to predicting catastrophe if the stimulus bill wasn’t immediately passed and then waiting four days to sign it,
to leading the party that categorically stated there were no problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac just prior to the catastrophic problems that befell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
to leading the party that has taken a page from the Joe McCarthy playbook by demanded the names of private citizens who have lawfully received contractually obligated retention bonuses,
to being decidedly anti-science in the ongoing debate over stem cell research,
to embarrassing himself and this country in his first meeting with the Prime Minister of Great Britain,
to childishly attacking a private-sector radio talk-show host publicly,
to deciding to appear on a late night talk show on the taxpayer’s dime while railing against about wasteful spending,
to lambasting Senator John McCain for saying the economy was fundamentally sound before predicting economic catastrophe before saying the economy was fundamentally sound again,
to spending astronomical amounts of taxpayer money on inaugural celebrations while the economy dipped into its “worst state since the Great Depression,”
to needing a teleprompter in almost every conceivable public setting,
to talking March Madness basketball with ESPN analysts while America is gripped in an “unprecedented financial downturn,”
just imagine an “R” after Barack Obama’s name.

By a show of hands, who honestly believes he’d be getting the same uncritical, cursory, all-you-need-is-love coverage from the mainstreamers? Or the talk-show circuit?

Even his closing of Gitmo would have seduced partisan aspersions.

Nope. No media bias there.

Posted in Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days, politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2009


If ever there was a “Boy, if this happened to George W. Bush …” moment in the two months since Barack Obama became President, it would have to be Tuesday’s St. Patrick’s Day display of Messianic moonbattery at the White House.

Let’s be clear.

Had this happened on “W’s” watch, there would have been an immediate call to action to all Lefty laptop rat-a-tat-tatters in basements across the map to let the word go forth. TV talk-show monologue makers would be thanking the gods for such a fruitful bounty. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC would have spent at least twenty minutes on it on her sparingly watched television program. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC might have been forced into an orgasmically-induced change of undergarments had the Cowboy President done such a thing. It might have even warranted two columns on the New York Times front page (I’ll give you below the fold).

President Obama hosted Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowan at the White House yesterday in honor of St. Patrick’s Day.

Both men appeared before the press.

After a teleprompted address by the President, Mr. Cowan started his remarks, also teleprompted. However, after a paragraph or two it was evident that something wasn’t quite right with the Prime Minister’s statement.

Then it became obvious.

Prime Minister Cowan was reading the wrong statement.

There was apparently a teleprompter boo-boo and he wound up re-reading Obama’s remarks, given just a few moments earlier. Cowan caught the error, turned the President and said, “That’s your speech.”

It was fairly embarrassing – a teleprompter teleproblem .

After a chuckle, Obama returned to center-stage, presumably to play the role of Messiah and save the day.

It was, by all accounts, a situation tailor-made for Obama. Here was an opportunity for the grand orator himself – the greatest rhetorician, perhaps, since Roosevelt – to step into his element and salvage what could only be described as amateur hour at the White House. If anyone could, he could rescue the moment. Here was what so many had been waiting for – to hear America’s most eloquent elocutionist step up to the plate and show why he is The One. Who else but he in all of Creation could deliver on an occasion as awkward as this?

Obama proceeded to speak – but to the mild surprise (and disappointment) of some, he was reading off the teleprompter again. It was odd – particularly because here was a man touted as the anti-Bush, in terms of articulation, standing there with a chance to show why he was so good, but didn’t. Or couldn’t.

To be fair, maybe the right “ad-libs” didn’t immediately come to mind.

Still, he sounded fine, doing his best to move past the teleprompting flub … that is, until it was apparent that what he was reading off the electronic cue-cards was wrong. Really wrong.

He was actually reading the statement Prime Minister Cowan was supposed to deliver a moment earlier.

The faux par became perfectly clear when the President thanked himself for the invitation to the White House.

(It simply isn’t possible to make this stuff up).

How long do you think it would have taken, had he not expressed his undying gratitude to himself, before he realized he was speaking words that really made no sense coming from the American President? Is Obama so teleprocessed that he has no ability to comprehend what he is saying? The President certainly reviews what he is going to say at any public venue before hand. Did it not occur to him that what he was reading was not familiar? Or if it was, that it wasn’t meant for him? Maybe he just misremembered.

Does Michelle wind him up for the question period?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2009

Score one for America’s military heroes.

Score one for doing the right thing.

The White House has decided that it will not pursue a plan that would have forced private insurance companies to pay for the care of wounded veterans. The responsibility of caring for Americas’ wounded warriors will stay where it rightly belongs – with the government who sent them to war.

Posted this afternoon at the American Legion website:

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization applauded President Obama for dropping his plan to bill private insurance companies for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries.

“We are glad that President Obama listened to the strong objections raised by The American Legion and veterans everywhere about this unfair plan,” said National Commander David K Rehbein of The American Legion. “We thank the administration for its proposed increase in the VA budget and we are always available to assist by providing guidance to ensure a veterans health care system that is worthy of the heroes that use it.”

Following a meeting this afternoon with The American Legion and other veterans service organizations, the White House announced that it will no longer considering billing insurance companies or veterans for their service-connected disabilities.

That the President finally got it right deserves praise. That he, or anyone lese, would even consider such an abhorrent plan as reasonable to begin with …

Well, at least he did the right thing.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2009

President Carter, take notice.

Learn something.

Take a moment to watch former President George W. Bush.

This is precisely how an ex-President of the United States, regardless of what side of the aisle he is on, is supposed to conduct himself when he leaves office. He’s not to behave like a traitorous, venom-spewing, spoiled-sport, crotchety old has-been attempting to create some degree of credibility for himself by picking apart other Presidents and embracing terrorists.

Rob Gillies of the Associated Press writes:

Former President George W. Bush says he won’t criticize President Barack Obama because Obama “deserves my silence,” and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush’s speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.

A few words for Big Jim to consider … dignity, character, etiquette, class, honor, grace …

Posted in politics | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2009

biden_brain1So, the economy was on the brink of catastrophe before it was fundamentally sound before it became worse than FDR’s – if I understand correctly. Or is it better to say that it was the worst economy since the Great Depression before it was basically strong before it became the worst economy ever, including the Great Depression.

I’ll say one thing for these Obamacrats, they certainly have themselves covered – building a formidable arsenal of sound bites for every possible occasion. They divert, reflect, reinvent and redefine reality as it occurs, setting new standards for confusion and misdirection. If they weren’t in power, it’d be almost amusing. This is more than simply having the left hand and the right hand not being in synch. This is about getting “for rent” notifications from the brain in between.

According to the second most powerful man in the country, President Obama has it worse than Franklin Roosevelt did at the same point in his Presidency seventy-six years ago.

Carol E. Lee at The Politico writes:

Vice President Joe Biden’s discussed the economy in stark terms at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Monday night, in contrast with the upbeat tone coming from the White House over the past few days.

In a 20-minute speech in the lobby of the Corcoran Gallery of Art, Biden said President Obama “has inherited the most difficult first 100 days of any president, I would argue, including Franklin Roosevelt.”

“Let me explain what I mean by that,” he added. “It was clear the problem Roosevelt inherited. This is a more complicated economic [problem]. We’ve never ever been here before – here or in the world. Never ever been here before.”

I take it Joe’s microphone was on this time.

This, of course, is not to be confused with the White House message on Sunday that the economy is fundamentally sound.

Do Barack and Joe not talk? Or exchange e-mails? Or text with eachother?

In one respect, Obama does have it more difficult than Roosevelt.

He has Biden.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Joe Biden, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, politics | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2009



Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2009

americanlegionRecall that on Inauguration Day, the newly elected President of the United States, to the great dismay and disgust of those of us with a clue, asserted that America’s security “emanates from the justness of our cause.” This is the type of confused cognition that can only come from the mouth of someone who has no regard, gratitude or comprehension of what the armed forces of the United States provide for this country. It is as insulting as it is asinine, and conclusively denotative of why liberals cannot, in any way, be trusted with the security of the United States of America.

It is thus no surprise that the Obama administration would pursue the ignoble initiative of forcing private insurance companies to foot the bill for the treatment of wounded veterans, effectively pawning off that which is the undeniable moral obligation of the federal government onto the private sector. The idea that wounded servicemen and women would be forced to find a way to pay for their own treatment in order to save the government a few bucks is unconscionable. At a time when trillions of taxpayer dollars are being shoved into the most egregious, useless, unnecessary pig-meat projects in existence, to have the care of America’s wounded warriors treated as a matter of mere budgetary concern is an abomination.

For those who honor and revere the men and women who serve, it is a gross indignity to know that protecting the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, or monitoring coral reefs, takes precedence over the care of this nation’s military personnel.

Last week, as this story was gaining some national exposure, Adam Levine at CNN wrote:

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

But the proposal would be “dead on arrival” if it’s sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

(The words “and darling of the anti-war Left” should have followed the opening words “Veterans Affairs Secretary.”)

Yesterday, Ed Morrisey, at the great Hot Air blog, wrote:

The Obama administration explains that it wants private insurers who sell coverage to vets to pay their fair share, but there are two things wrong with that argument. First, the United States has a moral obligation to provide treatment for those wounded in the service of their country. That’s a commitment we make to the people who enlist in military, and should not get outsourced.

Second, vets with service-related injuries and illnesses can only get third-party insurance because insurers know the US will cover all service-related medical treatment through the VA. If the government reneges on that commitment, it will put insurers on the hook for veterans already enrolled — but it will make it a lot harder for the next set of veterans to get insured. It will also raise costs to the rest of the insured by those companies, when the burden should fall on all Americans equally.

Morrisey was commenting on what is being reported as a fairly disturbing meeting between Commander David K. Rehbein, head of The American Legion, and The Messiah, that took place yesterday.

According to a story published at the American Legion website last evening called “Don’t Bill Our Heroes” :

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Here comes that old Clinton feeling again – the derision and disdain emanating from the top for the United States military is once again on full display, only this time with the Obamacratic regime. Who but those who harbor contempt for the military would pursue such a disgraceful policy?

A nation that does not care for those warriors who have sacrificed themselves in her defense cannot survive the vacuity of its immorality – nor does it deserve to.


Posted in Ethics, Liberalism, military, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 16, 2009


Yet more proof that when it comes to stem cell research, the American Left – and thus, President Barack Obama – is uninterested in science.

As I have asserted over the past week, President Obama’s reversal of the Bush administration’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is motivated primarily by ideology – the almost involuntary need to undo anything and everything Bush.

It’s a fixation of Obamacrats and other leftist-like entities.

To be fair, I am willing to concede a fair amount of ignorance still exists on the matter with the general public. For instance, as has been noted extensively by conservative pundit and commentator alike, many in this nation continue to believe that President Bush actually banned the research of embryonic stem cells, not just taxpayer funding for them (and then only for new embryonic stem cell lines created after 2001). The perception is that the archaic, God-happy Texan who preceded The Chose One was so Jesus-obsessed, that he was more than willing to sacrifice innocent lives to preserve petry-dish cell clumps.

Those clumps can’t vote yet, so why would they be worth anything?

I have contended that if science were the true motivation behind this purely anti-W/pro-abortion maneuver, Obama and crew would have no need to shove taxpayer dollars into what is a tremendously unethical area of research, especially knowing that the very same research can be done – ethically – without destroying a single human embryo.

In 2007, scientists discovered that they could, in effect, create embryonic stem cells (actually, the biological equivalent to them) by manipulating what we know as “adult” stem cells – injecting them with specific genes to transform them into a more primitive state. This was a huge breakthrough that, theoretically, solved the problem on all fronts. Stem cell research could continue and the profound ethical issues surrounding the destruction of human embryos would be avoided altogether.

With the advent of this exciting technology, President Bush signed Executive Order 13435 in June, 2007. It allowed for federal taxpayer dollars to be used in the continued research of these new embryonic stem cell copies – known as pluripotent cells. In other words, once the ethical dilemma of destroying human embryos was no longer an issue, President Bush said federal funds were on the way.

Onward science!

That is, until last Monday.

Not only did President Obama re-fund embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer dollars, he overturned Executive Order 13435.

Overturned it!

The actual text from the Executive Order Obama signed last week reads:

“(b) Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007, which supplements the August 9, 2001, statement on human embryonic stem cell research, is revoked.”

Those who accused President Bush of being ideologically tainted had best step back and consider the unqualified foolishness of what Obama has done.

For what reason would the President Obama find it necessary to revoke President Bush’s funding of pluripotent cell research if not for purely political reasons? Even as a fervent advocate of embryonic stem cell research – which he is – is it nothing but childish vindictivness that motivates him to needlessly rescind Bush’s Executive Order? If, indeed, this is only about science, than hasn’t President Obama served to obstruct it, at least as much as he claimed Bush was?

Think about this for a moment.

President Bush signed an Executive Order providing federal funds for the research of cells that can be created by scientists to be the same as embryonic stem cells, thus rendering the crux of the debate moot. President Obama, on the other hand, upon taking office, thumbed his nose at this and not only poured his ideological excrement onto a highly volatile issue by making taxpayers who value human life pay for its destruction, but did so when it didn’t have to be done – not if science were truly the consideration. On top of that, he cut off funds for the science that made the destruction of human embryos inessential.

Disgusting, Mr. President.

I thought about throwing in a “Shame On You, Bam,” but it’s starting to lose its meaning at this point.

Posted in Ethics, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Science | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 15, 2009

This picture was not taken in Manhattan

This picture was not taken in Manhattan

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 14, 2009

From the “Does Anyone in Washington Know What The Hell They’re Doing File?”…

He apparently approved it before he banned it.

Two days after signing an Executive Order that gave the “okie dokie” to the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (overturning a ban set in place by the Bush administration), the President has banned the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

No, really.

Stuffed deep into the bowels of the Obama omnibus earmark spending bill passed this week, on page 280 of the 465 page bundle of pigmeat, located in Section 509 of Title V, is this little passage:

stem-cellsSEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

It is known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, and it is something that has been part of the annual Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill every year since 1996.

But don’t start jumping for joy just yet.

It is highly unlikely that President Obama had a forty-eight hour change of heart. It is also unlikely that he was ignorant to the amendment’s inclusion in the bill. Even for this administration – setting new standards for cluelessness and incompetence on a daily basis – that’s almost too ridiculous to actually believe.

Terrence Jeffery, Editor-In-Chief of CNS News writes:

Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush’s administrative policy denying federal funding to that research.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.) sponsored the House version of a bill–vetoed by President Bush–that would have legalized federal funding of stem cell research that destroys so-called “spare” human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics. On Monday, she told The New York Times she had already approached what she called “several pro-life Democrats” about the possibility of repealing Dickey-Wicker.

“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,” The Times quoted DeGette as saying. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”

Rep. Mike Castle (R.-Del.), who co-sponsored Rep. DeGette’s bill, similarly stated this week that Dickey-Wicker should be revisited.

“Certainly, the Dickey-Wicker amendment . . . is something we need to look at,” Castle told Congressional Quarterly Today on Monday. “That was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed.”

In the remarks he made Monday when announcing the executive order, President Obama said he wanted to close the door to “the use” of cloning for human reproduction but not for other purposes.

But there is so much disingenuousness in Obama’s so-called “anti-cloning” stance, it almost makes Bill Clinton’s Lewisnki denial seem credible.

From the great Moral Accountablity blog:

“Obama supported legislation that would allow human cloning for the purpose of creating embryos for research so long as those nascent human beings were then destroyed or discarded and not implanted. In his executive order on stem-cell research policy, President Obama has gone even farther by authorizing the use of federal taxpayer dollars for research involving the destruction of human embryos created by cloning. This is an unprecedented and truly radical step.”

While it would be nice to believe that President Obama was (figuratively) smacked in the skull with the reality of how unnecessary it is to have to resort to destroying human embryos to further the research in the field, it just isn’t the case. For Leftists, this debate is not about the science. It never has been. It is – and always has been – about abortion. (Please see my article Embryonic Stem Call Follow Up – Who’s Earth Is Really Flat?)

Dizzying advances have been made over the past two to three years that would ultimately afford scientists the same level of research they have with embryonic stem cells without having to destroy any human embryos. That almost no one is talking about this reality or using this fact to further the debate is, frankly, embarrassing – and revealing of how much this debate is not about science.

(Please see Obama’s Leftism, Ethical Science and Tasty Facts). 

Yuval Levin, at National Review Online writes:

Over the last three years in particular, a technique that transforms normal adult cells (like skin cells) into what appears to be the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells has been sweeping the field, holding out the promise of not only a way around the ethical dilemmas but a source of genetically matched cells almost without end. Cells left over from fertility treatment have thus grown far less compelling on scientific grounds than they were when Bush made his decision, but no less problematic on moral grounds. Today, the case for funding them is weaker than ever.

Don’t look for any of these scientific realities to affect Obama’s ideological myopia on this particular topic. He will vigorously persue a way to kick out Dickey-Wicker.

Book it.

Posted in Ethics, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 14, 2009


Some people need teleprompters for even the most menial public statements, others could probably use them more often than not.

Vice President Joe Biden is much like the milky-in-the-filbert uncle with the hair growing out of his ears that yells at the bookcase for no reason during Thanksgiving holiday get togethers. It’s just accepted that his trolley has long-since chugged around the bend. He rants aimlessly, misspeaks regularly, has a running total of gaffes that could keep archivists busy through Halloween and scares the living hell out of people who realize that he is a mere heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world – inlcuding libs.

What a scallowag.

In what is really more of an FYI piece than a new story, Joe Biden pulled one of those “Oh, I didn’t know the microphone was still on” moments in Washington, D.C. yesterday.

From the ABC News blog:

At an event at Union Station today where Vice President Joe Biden was heralding the $1.3 billion in investments in rebuilding train stations and passenger rails, a microphone picked up one of the former senator’s myriad Senate colleagues addressing him, formally, as “Mr. Vice President.”

That met with Vice President Biden’s standard reply.

“Gimme a f*&$#ing break,” he said, apparently unaware that the microphone was on.

Coincidentally, that was my exact response as I listened to him yammer about shoving over a billion bucks of taxpayer money into Amtrak.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 14, 2009




Every line in this image is perfectly straight.

Every line in this image is either perfectly horizontal or perfectly vertical.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 13, 2009

“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future.”           -Barack Obama, February 4, 2009

“I’ve never bought into these Malthusian, woe, Chicken Little, the earth is falling. I tend to be pretty optimistic … I don’t think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say. Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They’re not as bad as we think they are now.”        -Barack Obama, March 12, 2009


Three quick points …

First, didn’t the President also say that a failure to act on passing the stimulus bill could mean the economy might never recover?

Second, didn’t Chicken Little say the sky was falling?

Third, if the economy turns around on the Obama watch, will he then acknowledge things just aren’t as good as they seem?



From the Liberal/English Dictionary entry catastrophe: 

Main Entry:







Greek katastrophē, from katastrephein to overturn, from kata- + strephein to turn – confiscated by American Democrat Party for political scare mongering


1540 original, February 2009 Democrat redefine

1: no biggie <failure to act will be a catastrophe>

2: false scare <this crisis will turn into a catastrophe if left alone>

3: as expected <my Presidency is a catastrophe>


cat·a·stroph·ic \ˌka-tə-ˈsträ-fik\ adjective

cat·a·stroph·i·cal·ly \-fi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Obama's first 100 days, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 13, 2009


On college campuses across the star-spangled map, the First Amendment is taken very seriously – especially when it comes to protesting wars, demonstrating for abortion rights, fighting against global warming, resisting God, embracing socialism, advocating same-sex marriage, promoting multiculturalism, castigating America and crapping on the military. (Such diversity!)

However, a disturbing trend is developing at America’s higher institutions of indoctrination – er, learning.  The protection of free speech provided for in the First Amendment is, in increasing numbers, becoming optional in the eyes of academia when the speech touches upon a long-time anathema of the Left, namely the Second Amendment – the Constitutional right to bear arms.

On Mike Gallagher’s radio show yesterday, he took a couple of moments to read an article posted at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) website that counts some of  an ever-growing number of instances where students on campuses across the country face censorship, police inquiry, or even penalty, for simply talking about guns – and nothing that could even be remotely construed as threatening or promoting of violence. Rather, students are being silenced for exercising their right to free expression.

Want to talk Marxism? Feel free.

How about the slaughering of North American Indians by evil Europeans? You bet.

Feel like screaming about the need to impeach President Bush? Have at it, crusader.

Think reparations for the descendants of slaves is a good idea? Testify, brother.

Think the idea of carrying a concealed firearm on a college campus is worthy of, at least, some discussion? Get ready to be questioned by the cops.


According to the article at the website’s Daily Policy Digest page:

… an unfortunate consequence of the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University is that students are increasingly facing punishment or investigation for engaging in any kind of gun-related speech, says William Creeley, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

It’s useful to review just how many incidents of overreaction to gun-related speech we’ve seen on the part of school administrators in the past several years, says Creeley:

• At Central Connecticut State University, a student gave a presentation for his speech class about the safety value of concealed weapons on campus; his professor called the police, who subsequently interrogated him about where he was storing the guns that were registered under his name.

• At Tarrant County College in Texas, a student chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was prohibited from wearing empty gun holsters to protest policies that forbid concealed carry on campus; in addition, the group was only allowed to protest (still without holsters) in the school’s tiny and restrictive free speech zone.

• At Colorado College, two male students were found responsible for sexually-related “violence” after they put up posters making fun of a feminist newsletter; because the posters, which also parodied “guy stuff,” made references to chainsaws and the range of a sniper rifle, administrators claimed that feminists on campus became afraid for their lives.


• At Lone Star College near Houston, the Young Conservatives of Texas distributed a humorous flyer listing “Top Ten Gun Safety Tips” at the school’s “club rush”; they were threatened with probation and derecognition, and the flyer was censored.

• Arkansas Tech cancelled a student production of Stephen Sondheim’s Assassins “out of respect for the families of those victims of the tragedies at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech, and from an abundance of caution.”

• Yale University attempted a similar maneuver after the Virginia Tech shootings, banning the use of any realistic-looking weapons in theatrical productions at the school; under public pressure, Yale backed away somewhat from its original overreaction but still required audiences to be “notified in advance of the use of fake guns, swords and knives.”

American Leftocrats believe in liberty – as long they define the parameters – and they’re more than happy to limit exercise of the First Amendment if the speech is intended to defend the Second Amendment.

The fact is, the Second Amendment not only provides for the citizenry the right to protect itself against a potentially tyrannical government, but against criminals with intent on doing harm. That liberals seem to have a difficult time differentiating between law abiding citizens exercising their right to bear arms and criminals who couldn’t give a damn what laws are on the books illustrates why liberals cannot be trusted with protecting innocents.

Is there anyone who lost a family member or friend in any college campus murder spree who would have objected to a student carrying a concealed weapon blowing away the killer before their loved one was slaughtered?

Yes, Virginia, violence is sometimes justified and moral.

Yet, on American college campuses, where free expression of thought and the open exchange of ideas is supposed to be at the very heart of their purpose, anyone who even broaches such an argument seemingly runs an ever-increasing risk of being silenced, censored or branded a right-wing radical by totalitarian-like educators and their indoctrinated.

These are the values being slammed into the skulls of your children at today’s universities.

And if you do have kids that are going away to college, pray they stay drunk.

Posted in Academia, Education, First Amendment, Liberalism, Second Amendment | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 12, 2009

I can imagine that within the inner circles of the leftist thinkocracy – specifically those who would typify President Obama’s reversal of the Bush Administration’s ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as enlightened and forward-thinking – the following cartoon, created by Rex Babin (published in the Sacramento Bee), was an enormous hit. (I’m out on a limb, I know).

I can only pretend to comprehend the amount of thought that must have gone into the exceptionally original concept of tying the phrase “flat earth” to former-President Bush.

How unique.

It must have scored Mr. Babin a whole lot of cafeteria room high-fives from the sophisticates in Sacramento.

Hypothetical leftist 1: “Man, that Babin is good, isn’t he?”

Hypothetical leftist 2: “Yeah, It’s like he has his finger on the pulse of what we’re all thinking. And the guy can draw!”

Unfortunately for Babin – and all the other oblivious, knee-jerk, sycophants in his camp – this cartoon is either illustrative of how naïve the left is, or how stupid they are. (You decide).


First, the obvious implication is that because George W. Bush is a conservative (and one of those Christian God types to boot) his moth-eaten position of denying taxpayer dollars to fund this potentially earth-shattering scientific research is both suppressive and anti-science – and not unlike the blinded-by-faith Christians of the Middle Ages who steadfastly believed the earth was flat.

Unfortunately, for Babin, it is a completely flawed premise – although I almost admire his banal effort to be timely and relevant.

The fact is, from about the 3rd Century BC, there were virtually no educated people in the Western Hemisphere who believed the earth was flat – and that includes not only the earliest Christians, but those of the Middle Ages. The notion that Europeans believed overwhelmingly that the earth was flat up until the Age of Exploration is simply untrue. It’s a popular culture myth born in the early 19th Century with the publication of Washington Irving’s book “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.” It is not based on historical fact.

If, however, Babin is attempting to equate what he sees as Bush’s horse-and-buggy policies to Mesopotamian theology or pre-Classical Era paganism, then I’d say his analogy is nearly worth acknowlegding – although thoroughly (and predictably) incorrect. Otherwise, I invite anyone who truly believes Babin’s intent was anything other than taking a pot shot at conservative christianity – and thus, by default, pro-lifers – to stand on his or her head.

Second, if the “flat earth” incrimination is to be effective – or at least make sense – the assumption must hold that what is being “rejected” or “denied” is something slightly more concrete than the current question marks that characterize much of today’s embryonic stem cell research. Just because a segment of the population wants the research to yield results that would (theoretically) be beneficial to the study and treatment of degenerative diseases, does not automatically mean that those who are against its federal funding on ethical grounds are to be accurately equated to those who would deny more readily verifiable things – like a spherical planet or the moon landing.

As I wrote yesterday, this is not about the advancement of science. It is about the ethics of science. This is not even about the research itself. If private citizens wish to contribute to the continued research of embryonic stem cells – and believe me, there are no shortage of wealthy Leftocrats out there – so be it. This is about using taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos, which Obama’s Executive Order has opened the door to.

Third, consider how different the debate would sound if the successes that have been realized through adult stem cell research, and the less-than-triumphant successes that have come from embryonic stem cell research, were reversed. Would the Left be nearly as passionate in securing federal funding for the more dubious and fruitless research of adult stem cells?

You know the answer.

I would submit to Mr. Babin that it is decidely more “flat earth” to channel the amount of faith that embryonic stem cell proponents have put into that singular area of research when adult stem cells have actually been used succesfully to therapuetically treat diseases. It is even more “flat earth” to feverishly push for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research when the biological equivalent to embryonic stem cells – called induced pluripotent stem cells – can now be created in laboratories without having to destroy human embryos – and have been since 2007.

I wonder how many know that.

Mr. Babin?

Can you say leftist dogma?

Can you say abortion rights agenda?

Come on now … is this really about the science?

Posted in Ethics, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 12, 2009


Let’s hear a great big, foot-stomping, boisterous “Hell yeah!” for the United States Supreme Court. They have decided that criminality will continue to be defined by the actions of criminals.

What am I talking about?

The nation’s highest court decided on Monday that it will not hear what amount to two absolutely asinine lawsuits, brought from the cities of New York and Washington, D.C., that attempted to hold gun manufacturers in the United States responsible for the acts of criminals.

It’s hard to overstate how significant this is.

According to the National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action:

The Court ‘s order leaves standing a pair of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and District of Columbia Court of Appeals, both of which found that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, prevents these types of lawsuits against lawful firearms manufacturers and dealers.

There aren’t enough “hip hip hoorays” in all of America to express how important this decision is. By saying “no thanks, we don’t want to touch this,” the Supreme Court has assured that big city liberal mayors will not be able to stick their political daggers into the body of the Second Amendment, as these lawsuits underhandedly aimed to do.

In short, the idea was to litigate lawful American gun manufacturers out of business, thus assuring that the vast majority of those acquiring firearms in the United States would be criminals.

According to Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist: “NRA has always believed the courts would agree with Congress that the PLCAA rightfully stops these reckless and politically motivated lawsuits.”

In 2000, New York City, Washington, D.C. and several individual plaintiffs sued gun manufacturers, based on the idea that although they manufactured a legal product, forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees just to prove their innocence in court would drive them into bankruptcy. In addition to being based on a bogus legal theory, these lawsuits endangered American armed forces and law enforcement. During congressional debate over the PLCAA, the Department of Defense agreed with the NRA that bankrupting U.S. gun makers and making us dependent on foreign countries like France, Russia or China for small arms is a threat to America’s domestic and international security.

“We are pleased that the courts have recognized the misguided intent of these lawsuits,” concluded Cox. “America’s law-abiding firearms manufacturers must be protected from reckless suits that have no legal merit.”

Nice job.

Thanks to Buckeye Jay for sending this my way.

Posted in Liberalism, Second Amendment, Supreme Court | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 12, 2009


This is a golden oldie, but I’ve decided to pull it from the archives because it couldn’t be more appropriate.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2009


Most surprising to me is not how radically leftist the President is showing himself to be in his policies and proposals, but how surprised others seem to be at the course he is taking.

Why exactly are Obama’s radical ideas shocking to anyone? What was it about everything Obama said during the campaign season that would make anyone think he was anything less than an honest-to-goodness, faithful, textbook Alinski-wing leftist? What exactly was it about a voting record that won him honors as the most liberal Senator in Washington – as well as a history of associations and activities with leftist anti-American radicals – that would lead card-carrying, self-professed liberals like CNBC’s “Mad Money” host, Jim Cramer, and billionaire Warren Buffet, to believe that The Messiah was a centrist?

Because they wished him to be?

Because Obama seems like such a nice guy?

Because he has the facility to deliver teleprompter prose with the tone and cadence of a moderate?

Radicals are not exclusively identified as angry, ranting, blathering, fist-pumping, banner waving Abbie Hoffman types with angled berets atop their heads and a need for deodorant. Being well groomed, even-tempered, and one who can read a script very well does not disqualify one from being a radical or a proponent of radical ideas.

As it is with most conservatives who paid attention during the campaign season, there isn’t a single thing Obama has said or done since his anointment that has taken me by surprise – from his announcement that Guantanamo Bay would be closed to yesterday’s green light on taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research (and all radically transforming stops in between) – the Obamacratic regime has, in my mind, followed the expected path: astronomical spending, social engineering, tax increases on the most productive, retreating from a war zone on a publicly announced date, rewarding failure … it’s all part of the same picture.

Yesterday’s Executive Order by President Obama was, arguably, the most radical move yet for the new President. What he did was more than just reverse the Bush Administration’s policy of not allowing taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. He has actually allowed for the creation of brand new human embryos so that they might be destroyed for future experimentation.

From the great Moral Accountability Blog, Yuval Levin from the Ethics and Public Policy Center explains:

“… it will tell researchers that if they destroy a human embryo, they will become eligible for federal dollars to use in studying its cells; establishing an obvious and unprecedented incentive. And the president has not established any moral constraints whatsoever on funding: he has instructed the NIH (National Institutes of Health) to create the rules, so it’s safe to expect that they will permit not only the use of embryos “left over” after IVF (In vitro fertilization), but also those created solely to be destroyed for research, including those created by cloning. This is well beyond what even most advocates of overturning the Bush policy have tended to argue for in public.”

The idea that the President has opened the door to allowing human life to be created, only to be subsequently destroyed in order to research potential treatments that may theoretically save human lives sometime in the future is as convoluted and unethical as any position ever held by an American president – especially in light of the fact that another type of stem cell (the adult stem cell) has already been used with success to treat diseases, without having to destroy human life.

Levin says:

“What we do know, however, is that cells derived through the destruction of embryos left over after fertility treatment-the cells that President Obama’s executive order addresses-are far less useful, far less necessary, and far less appealing to researchers than they seemed eight years ago when the controversy surrounding federal stem cell funding policy began in earnest. This is a monumentally radical step the President has taken.”

stem-cell-research-2Let’s be clear.

Despite what advocates are saying, this debate, at its core, has absolutely nothing to do with the advancement of science. Rather, it centers on the ethics of science. Understanding first and foremost that human embryos are human beings in the earliest stages of development, it isn’t – or it shouldn’t be – difficult to at least acknowledge the profound moral dilemma in giving the “okay” to fund their destruction with taxpayer dollars. It is critical to remember that an embryo is not something distinctly separate from a human being – it is simply a stage of life.

Unfortunately, that’s not how the main-stream media operates.

First, they disingenuously suggest to the public that President George W. Bush falt-out banned embryonic stem cell research, which he most certainly did not. However, because of Bush’s unwillingness to fund research on new stem cell lines, Bush was branded as an anti-science hayseed, in favor of letting folks like actor Christopher Reeves – paralyzed from the neck down after a horse riding accident – die without the opportunity of having government-backed research afford him the chance to walk again. Of course, the President of the United States has no such power to ban research. Bush was, in fact, the first President to allow federal funding for it – on already existing stem cell lines.

George Bush killed Christopher Reeves” threads at some wacko liberal blogs were not uncommon when Mr. Reeves died in 2004.

Second, the word “embryonic” is often dropped so that all types of stem cell research are conveniently lumped together.

This morning, on his radio program, Dr. Bill Bennett had a fascinating and instructive discussion with Professor Robert P. George, Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Professor George made these very important points:

“The question is, will we go forward on the basis of research that requires the destruction of human life in its earliest stages or will we find an alternative path?

What’s really discouraging about the President’s decision yesterday is that we have found an alternative path. There are alternatives to embryo-destructive research that have shown enormous promise.

Sometimes in the media we get bias here that’s plainly pro-embryo destruction.

Stem cells are simply primitive cells that can be manipulated by scientists in order to become different types of tissue …

Some can come from adult tissue – just a skin scraping, the equivalent of a blood draw – harmless and completely ethical. Those stem cells, by the way are the ones that so far have actually proven to be therapeutically useful. They’re being used in therapies to treat diseases.

The second kind of stem cells we call embryonic stem cells. Those don’t actually exist in embryos. But if you take the cells from an embryo, thus destroying the embryo in a normal case, you can induce in a lab culture what is called pluripotency – that is, that quality that enables the cells to be morphed or manipulated into different cell types.

The really exciting news is that in 2007, an enormous breakthrough happened that enabled us to produce the biological equivalent of embryonic stem cells, but without killing embryos. These are not adult stem cells … These are called induced pluripotent stem cells. And these begin with an adult cell or an ordinary body cell – it could be taken from a child – but harmlessly again.

You can take an ordinary body cell … and essentially reprogram that cell genetically … make it into a primitive cell, biologically equivalent to a stem cell which can then be morphed into whatever sort of tissue you need for regenerative medicine. Unlike adult cells, they are fully pluripotent, and in that respect they’re just like embryonic cells.”

That is a remarkable revelation. How many people are aware of this truth? Doesn’t it seem reasonable to assume that the media should be interested in the science behind these induced pluripotent stem cells, which, as Professor George indicated, are the biological equivelant of embryonic stem cells?

The entire interview can be heard here in its entirety, directly from Bill Bennett’s “Morning In America” website. It is a must listen. Professor George is extraordinarily articulate and as compelling a guest as I’ve ever heard on talk radio.

Not that it would make a difference to the Obamacratic masses.

Like the junk science that propogates the Global Warming myth, this one is hard core leftist dogma.

Posted in Ethics, Health is the New Morality, Liberalism, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2009

Having a Bad Day?

Having a Bad Day?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2009

I was going to post this little tasty morsel myself, but proper credit goes to the outstanding Vocal Minority blog, via the equally exceptional Notoriously Conservative blog …

I recently asked my friend’s little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”

Her parents beamed.

“Wow…what a worthy goal.” I told her, “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to help people. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and rake my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

I said, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Bookmark to two aforementioned blogs if you have not already.


Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 10, 2009


President Barack Obama has apparently been free of any controversy whatsoever during the span of his lifetime, most notably during his years as a politician, and may very well be the first human being ever to serve in the White House that is without fault and above reproach – that is, if you read all about him at the Wikipedia online encyclopedia website. In fact, after brushing up on him there, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that Obama may very well be the greatest man ever to draw a breath in all of American political history.

For those unfamiliar with Wikipedia, it is written and edited entirely by those who use the site – but the final say of what stays in is left to those who run and monitor it. Hence, anyone looking to firm up on their Obama factoids will be deprived of anything that even suggests The Messiah may have ever been embroiled in anything contentious.

It turns out that Wikipedia users who have tried to include any mention of Obama’s associations with the terrorist Bill Ayers or the America-hating Reverend Jeremiah Wright have had their entries wiped from the page within minutes – and in some cases have been banned from the site altogether for three days.

Despite the fact that during the 2008 Presidential campaign season one couldn’t even breathe without hearing something about Obama’s relationship to Reverend Wright, the censors at Wikipedia have decided that it isn’t important enough to even score the briefest of mentions anywhere in the Obama entry.

According to Aaron Klein at World Net Daily:

… the current paragraph on Obama’s religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama’s association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.

That paragraph states: “Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand ‘the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.’ He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.”

Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.

(World Net Daily) monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers’ name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:

“He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge.”

Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding “Point of View junk edits,” even though the addition was well-established fact.

Note how “matter-of-fact” the mention of the terrorist Ayers is in that censored paragraph. In fact, if you didn’t know who the Weathermen were, you might conclude that Ayers was possibly an esteemed climatologist, or  the lead singer of 1960s garage band turned philanthropist. There is nothing inflammatory, derogatory or even provocative there, yet it somehow violated the website’s rule against “fringe” material.

Sure it did.

The disingenuousness of their position reeks like a 5PM armpit in a summertime New York City subway tunnel.

Wikipedia actually publishes many articles with “controversial” content. In fact, they post disclaimers at the top of pages that contain subject matter deemed argumentative or potentially biased:

“Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message.”

“This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective.”

And yet, any perceived fly in Obama’s Messianic Cherrio bowl is whitewashed by his ass-kissing sycophants.

Klein also points out that in Wikipedia’s article about former President George W. Bush, critical comments abound, including mentions of alcohol abuse in his youth, his handling of Hurricane Katrina, the favoritism he received during his time in the National Guard, and his role in presiding over the start of the current recession.

Nope. Not an electron of bias there.

Posted in Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 10, 2009

can we have a moment, please?
can we have a moment, please?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 9, 2009


Temperatures in Rio De Janeiro are expected to be in 80s this week. It is probably a far better and more credible locale from which to deliver a global warming doomsday speech than, say, Washington, D.C., which recently saw a huge rally of earth-conscious moonbats brave near blizzard conditions to protest the warming of the planet.

And so it will be that this coming Thursday, in Brazil’s second largest city, that the world renowned climatologist, and future King of England, Prince Charles, will give a keynote address in which he will warn that humanity has less than 100 months to act before damage from man-made climate change becomes irreversible. How this prognosis meshes with Al Gore’s prophecy that the northern polar ice cap will be gone in less than two thousand days – roughly 66 months – isn’t clear. Neither is how Charles’ warning stands up against the seemingly contradictory claims made recently by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that it’s already too late to do anything to save Earth.  

Still, the Prince is positive about all the negatives that await humanity unless action is taken now.

From the UK Telegraph:

Prince Charles will say that the need to tackle global warming is more urgent than ever before and that, even in a global recession, the world must not lose sight of the “bigger picture.”

Government officials believe that the Prince’s passion to protect the environment is hugely respected abroad and that he can play an increasing important role as he inevitably moves closer to becoming king. Some believe he is an “asset” that has been underused in the past and they want to use him more in a role of “soft diplomacy”. In Thursday’s speech, the Prince will warn that a failure to act in the next eight years will have catastrophic effects for the planet.

Temperatures in Tokyo may not be as balmy as in Rio De Janeiro – only in the 50s this week – but I wonder why the Prince doesn’t make a stop in Japan to impart his doomsday forecast to the apprehensive masses there.

Oh wait .. maybe it’s because Japanese scientists have recently declared the entire man-made global warming scare pure garbage.

Didn’t they get the memo that the debate was over?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 9, 2009

Lincoln County, West Virginia must be so very proud. Democrat Jeff Eldridge, from the unincorporated town of Big Ugly, is making a name for himself in the legislature by proposing an outright ban of Mattel’s famed Barbie Doll in his state. He doesn’t want them – or any dolls like her – sold in West Virginia anymore. Said Eldridge: “I knew a lot of people were going to joke about it and poke fun at me. I couldn’t get anybody to sign on the bill with me but I said I’m still going to introduce it.”

Crusader alert.

According to the text of the bill itself:

barbieA BILL to amend the Code of West Virginia … relating to banning the sale of “Barbie” dolls and other dolls that influence girls to be beautiful.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:

§47-25-1. Unlawful sale of Barbie dolls.

It shall be unlawful in the state to sell “Barbie” dolls and other similar dolls that promote or influence girls to place an undue importance on physical beauty to the detriment of their intellectual and emotional development.

NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to ban the sale of Barbie dolls and other similar dolls.

Liberals simply dumbfound me – although, by now, they shouldn’t. At their very core, with every fiber of their existence, in all facets of life, they sincerely believe that they know what’s best for everyone else. This attempt at nixing the Barbie Doll – which has an icicle’s chance in hell of ever becoming law, but is critically instructive in exemplifying the liberal propensity to want to stick their smoking nostrils in everyone’s business – is yet another glaring illustration of how today’s Leftocrat instinctively moves toward Nanny Statism to cure whatever perceived ills are destroying the fragility of the twenty-first century American. And rest assured, something like this will be attempted again in some form down the road. Leftists plug away and plug away until they finally hit upon the right combination of words, and the most appealing collection of reasons and rationales, to further their otherwise feckless agendas.

Libs operate with a bluster and sense of superiority usually reserved for Hollywood types and MSNBC hosts. Who the hell does Eldridge think he is to measure for all the citizens of West Virginia what qualifies as important or unimportant to girls? And how does he come to the feminized, whine-time conclusion that the importance of physical beauty is potentially detrimental to intellectual and emotional development?

The goal here, obviously, is to make sure that no child anywhere, in any circumstance, for any reason is ever exposed to anything that may upset, hurt, offend, or expose them to the realities of existence on Earth.

I swear on all that is holy that liberals have lost their ever-loving minds. These hyper-sensitive, emotionally fragile, societal basket cases are an embarrassment. These are the same people who say that keeping score at a kids’ sporting events can prove traumatic, or that every child who particpates in any activity is entitled to a certificate just for showing up, or that playing dodge ball at recess can be damaging to the psyches of the less athletically inclined.

Is it any wonder that America is churching out as many emasculated boys and confused girls as it is?

Posted in Liberalism, Nanny State | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 8, 2009

it's okay, bubula

it's okay, bubula

This metrosexualized edition of the Chief Executive is tiresome.

The President has already admitted that he’s been a bit overwhelmed since taking office – precisely the thing every American wants to hear from the Chief Executive of the world’s most powerful and influential nation. What with the recession, all of that budget stuff and the war crap to contend with, it’s little wonder the poor guy is feeling a bit inundated. It’s one thing to insult the Prime Minister of your closest ally (and thus, the nation) by throwing a bunch of DVDs his way while being presented with three memorable and breathtaking gifts, but to admit openly to an angry British press corp – and the world at large – that the job has just been too much in the early going is akin to saying, “Dear World, I am incompetent, I’m in over my head, but I do speak well. Love us again, please.”

How presidential.

Just imagine George W. Bush handing Prime Minister Tony Blair a stack of movies as his country’s offering for the traditional exchange of gifts between the two nations. The likes of Letterman and Leno would be lambasting Bush for forgetting the beer and chips.

But as long as we’re pulling things from the “In Over His Head” file …

The President is considering the idea of extending a warm, friendly hand to some of the more moderate members of the Taliban, presumably because they are teetering between the ideologies of blowing up innocents and extending liberty to all. The notion of coming up with a decent gift for the Prime Minister of Great Britain may have been a troubling one, but making nice with some of the less-murderous element of the Taliban is probably a lot less “overwhelming” than just wiping them from the map.

That kind of stuff annoys people.

From Reuters:

In an interview with the newspaper published on its website, Obama said that some of the U.S. success in Iraq involved reaching out to Islamic fundamentalists who had been alienated by the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Mr. President, are you admitting that there has been success in Iraq?

“There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region,” he said. “But the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex.”

The Times said that in the interview, Obama also left open the option for American operatives to capture terrorism suspects abroad even without the cooperation of a country where they were found.

“There could be situations — and I emphasize ‘could be’ because we haven’t made a determination yet — where, let’s say that we have a well-known al Qaeda operative that doesn’t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don’t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,” he said.

“I think we will have to think about how do we deal with that scenario in a way that comports with international law and abides by my very clear edict that we don’t torture.”

Surely, these user-friendly Taliban would be entitled to, at least, 10 DVDs apiece – but Obama shouldn’t tell them that at the beginning.

Leverage, baby.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama's first 100 days, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 7, 2009

Indeed, when dealing today’s liberal, it is getting progressively difficult to distinguish between parody and reality. (Think Global Warming as an example).

However, there are some of us who believe that there is still room for some spoof and mockery – although admittedly, as liberalism continues its onward progression further into hysteria and dimentia, the opportunities are becoming fewer.

Here is an audio-only commercial called “Lib Tech.” It is a radio spot promoting a new line of video games – only this time, aimed expressly at liberals.

This is the second parody spot I’ve posted created at my recording studios.

The first – a parody that takes a jab at those politically correct problem solvers and crime fighters who cry out against so-called “racial profiling” – called “The Libinators,” can be heard here.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 7, 2009


Just imagine how busy the sketch writers at Saturday Night Live would be had a story been published about President George W. Bush and his army of traveling teleprompters. The mind boggles trying to comprehend how much would be made on the late-night talk show circuit of Bush needing to have his electronic cue cards at almost every public venue that required him to speak. From Jon Stewart to Bill Maher – and all stops in between – America would never hear the end of it.

However, if one were to take the name George W. Bush and replace it with Barack H. Obama, the question is whether America would ever hear the beginning of it. (Insert your educated guess here).

While there is no correlation between one’s competence as an orator and one’s ability to speak publicly without a script or without prompting, the idea that a man who is touted for being such a dynamic speaker can only be so when he has something to read from is, to say the least, worth noting, don’t you think?

Carol E. Lee from The Politico writes:

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

Those who have remarked (conservative commentators almost exclusively) that president Obama often times seems to be searching for words when he is off-script have been ridiculed and accused of seeking retaliation for all of the attacks on the less-than-dynamic speaking skills of George W. Bush.

However, what is becoming clear is that President Obama, while often dynamite with a script, isn’t particular good “out of the box” – like, say, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton were.

After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck.

His use of the teleprompter makes work tricky for the television crews and photographers trying to capture an image of the president announcing a new Cabinet secretary or housing plan without a pane of glass blocking his face. And it is a startling sight to see such sleek, modern technology set against the mahogany doors and Bohemian crystal chandeliers in the East Room or the marble columns of the Grand Foyer.

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he’s been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

Interesting to point out is the contrast between President Obama and former President Bush.

By most accounts – from both sides of the aisle, mind you – President Bush spoke wonderfully off-script and off-camera. When he was unrehearsed, speaking from the heart, discussing matters he was not only passionate about but well-read on, he was a more-than-competent speaker. However, when he spoke from teleprompters or was rigidly scripted, he wasn’t quite as good.

The opposite seems to hold true for President Obama. When following the teleprompter, he is very good – some would say great. When he is left to fend for himself, however, he often seems to be thumbing through his mental rolodex trying to find the right number.

The point?

The cocooning of President Obama continues from all prcatically all sectors of the mainstream media.  This story would have been an Anderson Cooper three-part expose by now had this been a Republican needing to suckle at the teet of technology in order to communicate.

In other news, a new college drinking game could be on the horizon – fashioned after the old “Hi Bob” contest, in which people would watch the old Bob Newhart Show and down a shot everytime one of the characters said “Hi Bob.”

This new excursion into campus idiocy might be called the “Uh-bama” drinking game.

The premise is simple.

Record an Obama event that is not a fully scripted speech (if you can find one), and have the particpants in the game take a shot everytime the President says “uh.”

The game would be over in about seven minutes.

The net effect?

More hangovers means less leftist indoctrination at our universities.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 6, 2009

They don't understand you, Hugo, like I do

They don't understand you, Hugo, like I do

There’s a special kind of warm and fuzzy feeling one gets in knowing that countries once disposed to hating the United States are now offering little tidbits of constructive advice on how the current financial crisis – the global recession, if you will – should be handled.

With Cowboy W long gone – and jealousies clearly rampant among world leaders hoping to score their own free 25 DVD set from President Obama – an era of greater understanding may be at hand.

Take Venezuela’s good-time man at the top, Hugo Chavez.

While he certainly didn’t have much use for our last president, he appears to be a touch more accommodating this time around – willing to extend handy tips on recession busting to his new neighbor to the North.

Perhaps this is Chavez’s way of saying hello, or the equivalent of letting Obama borrow a hammer.

According to a story on the Drudge Report, Chavez has the answer on how to end to the recession – one that President Obama had better follow.

Good old-fashioned x-Marx-the spot Socialism!

From Drudge:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday called upon US President Barack Obama to follow the path to socialism, which he termed as the “only” way out of the global recession. “Come with us, align yourself, come with us on the road to socialism. This is the only path. Imagine a socialist revolution in the United States,” Chavez told a group of workers in the southern Venezuelan state of Bolivar.

The controversial Venezuelan leader, who taunted the United States as a source of capitalistic evil under former president George W Bush, added that the United States needs a leader who can take it to a “higher” destiny and bring it out of “the sad role that it has been given, as a murderous, attacking power that is hated all around the world.”

“That murderous, genocidal empire has to end, and some day there has to come a leader … who interprets the best of a people who also include human beings who suffer, endure, weep and laugh,” the outspoken Chavez said.

Don’t worry, Hugo.

Be patient.

Posted in Foreign Policy, socialism | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 6, 2009

dennis prager
dennis prager

The irony is that while they call themselves “progressive” (instead of “liberal”), Leftocrats continue to stagnate, if not digress – reaching back into history’s dustbins, resuscitating policies and positions that should have long ago been fitted with cement shoes, clinging to concepts and arguments with the obstinacy of an infected corn. That is the modus operandi of the American liberal – not to ask if something works, but to determine if it feels good or if it plays advantageously on the emotions of the electorate.

One old playlist favorite that never seems to lose its luster with the ever-mindful and substantive liberal thinkocracy is the “Nazi Card.”

On Wednesday, during the first hour of his radio program, Dennis Prager commented on remarks made by CNN host (and entertainer) D.L. Hughley, who last weekend proved once again that the only people obsessed with race in this country are Leftocrats. Hughley – deep thinker, social scholar and butcher of coherent English – put on display his intellectual prowess, digging deep into his bag of tired Leftocrat tricks by (once again) equating the Republican Party to the Nazi Party.

Said Hughley:

“The tenets of the Republican Party are amazing, and they seem warm and welcome … but when I watch it be applied – like, you didn’t have to go much further than the Republican National Convention. It literally looked like Nazi Germany. It really did.”

Hughley made the comments speaking with Michael Steele, head of the Republican National Committee, who, frankly, was not particularly compelling during his appearance and failed to react in any way to Hughley’s imbecility.

This little ditty went largely unnoticed, save for some conservative commentators, while the rest of the media was belly-button deep in Rush Limbaugh talk.

With Steele making the rounds and being bombarded with questions on the influence of Rush Limbaugh – a radio personality – on the Republican Party, Dennis Prager went on to make this excellent point:

… if Michael Steele is being asked to respond to Rush Limbaugh, then the head of the Democratic National Committee should be asked to respond to this CNN host. “What do you say about a host who says that the Republican Convention looks like the Nazi Party?”

In all candor, I was in the process of composing an article on this very subject, but in deference to the great Dennis Prager, who articulated my point as good, if not better, than I could have, I am simply commenting on the commentator here.

Prager went on to say:

d. l. hughley

d. l. hughley

“I assume he meant because there were so many white people there. It’s quite a remarkably stupid comment aside from being a vicious comment.

So, if it’s overwhelmingly white, it looks Nazi.

If it’s overwhelmingly black, what does it look like? What does that look like? … I would say, “Hughley, Did the Constitutional Convention look like the Nazi Party? Did the signing of the Declaration of Independence look like a Nazi Party?

Were you born foolish or did you become foolish when you adopted liberal ideas?”

Of course, there were “people of color” at the Republican National Convention, so in the most literal sense, Hughley is wrong. But the foolishness of Hughley’s position is best illustrated to liberals by turning the tables – although I’m fully prepared to field the inevitable birrage of comebacks from outraged leftists explaining to me how it is not the same.

Still, how do you think these words would play?

“The tenets of the Democrat Party are amazing, and they seem warm and welcome … but when I watch it be applied – like, you didn’t have to go much further than the Democratic National Convention. It literally looked like an inner city welfare office. It really did.”

As God is my witness, it turned my stomach just to write that, but you can bet if someone on the conservative side would have been asinine enough to say something such as that, it would have been splashed across every newspaper in the country and would have already spawned three MSNBC news specials on the ugly face of modern racism in America.

Posted in American culture, politics, Racism | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 5, 2009

yes_we_can_3You thought the analogue-to-digital conversion box fiasco had people confused?

Just wait.

This is something I can guarantee the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are not aware of – and come next April 15th, there are going to be a whole lot of irate people frantically screaming at their payroll departments demanding to know what the hell happened.

And meanwhile, not one official from the Obama Administration – the folks who care so much about America’s working families – is bothering to inform anyone about it.

If you are married, and both you and your spouse are entitled to President Obama’s economy-saving blockbuster “tax cuts” – which would yield approximately $13 a week in your paycheck through the end of the year, followed by approximately $8 a week until the $800 total is reached – you had better pay your payroll department a little visit and change your status to “married, filing separately” (if you haven’t already) or adjust your withholding allowances, because it is entirely possible you’re going to owe the government money by next April 15th.

Why?  How?

First, let’s go back to a press release from IRS commissioner Doug Shulman, issued at the end of February, regarding the implementation of Obama’s “tax cuts”:

For most taxpayers, the additional credit will automatically start showing up in their paychecks this spring. Since employers and payroll companies will handle this change, people typically won’t need to take any additional action.

That is, unless you are married and filing jointly.

As most Americans understand the Obama plan, if your payroll department lists your status as “married, filing jointly,” and you fall within the income guidelines, you qualify for the Obamarific $800 “tax cut” and your paychecks will be adjusted accordingly. But if your spouse files the same way at his or her job, he or she will also qualify for the same “tax cut.” Thus, by the time tax time rolls around next year, your “cut” could be twice and big as it was supposed to be, and you will owe that money back.

There is no cross-checking here between employers.

In a story that hasn’t gotten much play, Andrea Coombes, from Fox Business News writes:

But if you file a joint return with your spouse, and you both work, you should carefully review your withholding, because it’s highly likely both employers, without knowledge of what the other is doing, will adjust withholding such that both spouses receive up to $800, for a total credit of $1,600.

“It’s conceivable that if both are married-filing-joint and their income is not otherwise going to cause a phase-out [of the credit], they could get the double benefit,” said Frank Keith, chief of communications for the IRS. “When they file their return, the actual credit they’re entitled to is $800.”

That means paying back up to $800 with your return, though Keith said the money paid out this year, and thus any tax bill later, likely would be slightly lower — since the withholding adjustment starts close to midyear, the full credit won’t be paid out in paychecks.

For some, what’s effectively a loan from the government might be welcome. But others will find the big bill next year unwelcome. One way to prevent it: Adjust your withholding this year.

Note, too, that taxpayers who normally get a refund might simply see a reduced refund, rather than a bill, come April 2010. “A lot of people get refunds. If you’re in that situation, it likely would just mean that your refund is lower,” said Bob Scharin, senior tax analyst at Thomson Reuters’ tax and accounting business. “But if you normally do not get a refund, you could find you owe more tax than you anticipated.”

My wife is the controller of a large entity here in New York and knows the tax code in and out. Over the past week or so the finer details of the Obama plan are slowly becoming understood and the reality of married couples potentially being undertaxed by doing precisely what IRS commissioner Shulman suggested – that is, nothing – is hitting home, not only in my wife’s office, but in payroll departments everywhere.

At an APA (American Payroll Association) discussion group my wife has aceess to, moderated by CPP certified payroll professionals, one confused visitor posted:

“I am trying to figure out how the new tables work for a Married Couple, both working. In my little mind, if the new Percentage Method Withholding tables reduce the amount of tax withheld from someone claiming Married up to $800.00, then is it reasonable to think that if both spouses are claiming Married the amount of tax their withholding could be reduced as much as $1600.00? … So if both of the spouses fall into that bracket, they could in fact have a reduction of approx. $1,600.00. Which means that they might in fact have a tax liability at the end of the year. I called the IRS about this and after 5 transfers, all I got was, “well if they are both working then maybe they need to have additional tax withheld on their checks each pay period to make up for the short fall”. WOW, give us a stimulus then make us have extra tax withheld each pay period. I am probably just not seeing the big picture and I hope someone can show me where my error is.”

The response:

You are correct. If both spouses work, their total withholding will be reduced by more than they are entitled to at the end of the year and they will owe the difference. The IRS has published the new Publication 15-T. In that publication, they have included a “Notice to Employees”. This notice doesn’t really state that married employees in lower brackets will be underwithheld, but I think this is the IRS’s attempt at addressing the withholding issue.

I’m sure someone was going to get around to filling the American people in on it eventually.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2009


If tugging on Superman’s cape and spitting into the wind are no-nos, then messing around with Rush Limbaugh – while donning the apocryphal moniker of conservative – is sheer blockheadedness. Time and time again, counterfeit conservatism is reconstituted in the columns and commentaries of convoluted right-leaning hyper-intellectuals – David Brooks, Ross Douthat and Chris Buckley come to mind – while attempting to reinvent the movement in order to set themselves apart from the pack.

All the while, conservatives such as me are derided and repudiated as being too narrow-minded, out-of-touch and parochial.

Reconstructing conservatism into a more media-friendly animal, i.e. making it palatable to the Left, while infusing it with an Upper West Side sensibility, complete with nuance and compromised core values, is the goal of these new rightists – and be damned those still clinging to the dinosaur that is musty old one-dimensional Reagan conservatism.

And if the transformation (or rebirth) can be accomplished by going after the most well-known conservative of them all, Rush Limbaugh, it’s bound to garner some extra invites to the best social functions on the East Coast.

Granted, Rush Limbaugh needs no one – least of all me, an unknown, small-potatoes blogger fortunate to scratch out a few hundred hits a day – to defend him or come to his rescue. If there is anyone in the Land of Conservatism who has weathered more storms and has withstood more personal attacks from the outraged cackling masses on the left (and now, some on the right), it is he. Indeed, if anyone can stand up for himself, it is El Rushbo.

Rather, I’d like to take a moment and comment on a much talked about column published on Monday by faux conservative, David Frum.

In taking the position that left versus right has ostensibly boils down to Barack Obama versus Rush Limbaugh, Frum sounds as if he has gotten dibs on rubbing talcum powder on the feet of President Obama after a bath. He gushes like a grandmother lavishing praise on a horrible kindergarten drawing, showering The One with effusive acclaim for his grace and elegance, calling him “soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims.” (Kind of like Senator John Kerry always invoking his service in Vietnam every thirteen seconds).

Summoning my own intellectual Dramamine to keep me from losing my dinner, Frum salivates, “This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.”

Yes, Mr. Frum, it was incredibly “disciplined” of the leader of the free world to publicly call for Americans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh – a man who has quite literally built his success through dedication and hard work, living the American dream – wasn’t it? How astutely presidential of Obama to attack a successful private citizen.

And you’re right, David (if I may call you that) … it was equally “responsible” of the Chief Executive of the United States to say that “catastrophic” results were in store for the country should his stimulus pig-meat spending bill not pass in Congress as soon as humanly possible. It’s a good thing he waited four days to sign it into law.

Such leadership.

Incidentally, Mr. Frum, Obama’s devotion as a father and a husband has absolutely nothing to do with the job he is doing as President.

Still, your adoration of him is admirable.

Mr. Frum, if you need a moment, there are paper towels in the back by the radiator.

In commenting on Rush Limbaugh, whose speech at CPAC on Saturday was as energizing and substantive as any given by any conservative in a long time, Frum decides that personal attacks are the way to dissuade Republicans from hoisting the leadership banner atop Fort Limbaugh.

As if taking dictation from Rahm Emmanuel, Frum writes:

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

When will the little pups realize that no matter how much they yap at the back door or pee on the porch, they’ll never be able to belly up to the bowl and eat with the big dogs?

Frum’s obnoxious elitism – drawn from the liberal’s operational manual – is surpassed only by his contemptibility. While he cavalierly dismisses Obama’s cigarette sneaking as a mere occasional vice, he dispenses a whole lot of fat-catism on Limbaugh for his love of cigars. While Obama’s drug use in his youth is roundly discarded, Limbaugh’s long since conquered bout with pill dependency is exploited. To Frum, Obama is an Adonis who is physically “honed,” while Rush’s “personal bulk” somehow puts a blight on conservatism.

Yes, that’s what the new conservatism is apparently all about – fostering classism, mocking personal triumphs, and scorning appearance.

How petty, Frum. How pompus. How liberal.

And what exactly did Mr. Frum find “rancorous” about Limbaugh’s speech? Was it the idea that Limbuagh wants every American to succeed? That he doesn’t see Americans as victims but as individuals? That it is the individual, and not government, that has made America the greatest nation that has ever existed? These are core conservative principles that have been starving for eloquent and energized articulation for quite some time.

Rush did just that on Saturday.

There was not an electron of hatred or acrimony in his presentation. There wasn’t a scintilla of anger or bitterness therein. Instead, Limbaugh conveyed his awe and love of this country and its citizenry. What he did for those enthusiastic CPACers was inspire and encourage them. He reaffirmed the foundation of the movement. He did not attampt to redefine conservatism as the Frums of the world do. Limbaugh’s was a call to reclaim conservatism and bring it back to its roots.

The funny thing is … while talking heads on both sides of the aisle stumble about trying to develop their “Rush is now the ‘De Facto’ Leader of the Republicans” angle, Limbuagh trudges forward as he has, unchanged, since the day he first entered talk radio – when AM radio was about carrot cake recipies and the golden EIB microphone was still aluminum. He advances and advocates the same brand of conservatism he has since Day One. Two decades in the national spotlight has not changed where he is coming from nor where he would like to see this country go. David Frum, et al, portray Limbaugh as some sort of emerging leader, but Rush is simply doing what he has always done – namely defending the institutions, traditions and values of the United States.

Frum finished up this way:

Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise.

The “enterprise?”

Like “Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic Party in the 1980s?”

Jackson is a race-baiting, corporation strong-arming extortionist whose Sesame Street-like rhyming schemes and cartoonish cadences are as coherent as Barney Frank on peanut butter. This sounds like David Frum attempting to be the “smartest guy in the room,” as Rush often says, with an analogy that could use some cerebral Cialis.

Going after Rush Limbaugh is not a particularly shrewd strategy. It hasn’t proven successful for those who have attempted it. Safe to say, it probably won’t be a winner in the future.

Limbuagh has, for years, been at the forefront of the conservative movement in this country. That the most prominent conservative in America is not a politician, but a radio entertainer, speaks volumes about where the Republican Party is right now (and has been for some time).

The irony here is that if the Republican Party actually listened to Rush Limbaugh, they might win something.

Posted in Conservatism, politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009

City Mall, Christchurch, New Zealand

City Mall, Christchurch, New Zealand

In the 1953 film, War Of The Worlds, earthly viruses and bacteria are the undoing of the invading Martians. In Mars Attacks! it is the yodeling in Slim Whitman’s “Indian Love Call” that causes the Martian’s brains to explode.

In Christchurch, New Zealand, it could be Barry Manilow who wins the day over destructive teenagers – according to officials there.

From the Associated Press:

It’ll be Barry Manilow versus the mall rats. The New Zealand city of Christchurch hopes that putting the American crooner’s smooth and gentle tones into the mix of music to be broadcast through the central mall district can pacify unruly teens who congregate there- or at least convince them to go elsewhere.

“The intention is to change the environment in a positive way … so nobody feels threatened or intimidated,” Central City Business Association manager Paul Lonsdale told The Associated Press. “I did not say Barry Manilow is a weapon of mass destruction.”

A group of several dozen young people regularly spread rubbish, spray graffiti, get intoxicated, use drugs, swear and intimidate patrons at the outdoor mall, he said.

The city council, police and local property owners covering 410 businesses agree that “nice, easy listening” music like Manilow’s “Can’t Smile Without You,” “Mandy” and other hits might change the behavior of loitering teens.

But one 16-year-old told The Press newspaper that unfashionable music wouldn’t deter them.

“We would just bring a stereo and play it louder,” Emma Belcher said.

Lonsdale countered that the city would then hit them with anti-noise laws.

I’d love to sit down and pick the brain of someone who believes that unruly teenagers who deface public property, take narcotics and scare mall goers are going to suddenly rethink their behavior because of anti-noise laws?

This is the same dismembered line of thinking that believes tougher gun laws will keep criminals from getting them.

Setting aside the obvious – that the value systems of these punks who clearly believe it is their right to vandalize and harass are pure excrement – the 16-year-old who was interviewed in the piece is exactly correct. Manilow’s recordings won’t stop them. The mall could blare the collected works of Air Supply delivered with the phlegm-flavored stylings of Congressman Charlie Rangel and it wouldn’t faze them. The laughable weakness of the “deterrence” will only fuel the punks to come at them harder.

That’s the reality.

That’s why it is strength – not cutesy gimmicks – that keeps the peace. If the problem is as pervasive as the story implies, bad music from the 1970s – even Olivia Newton John’s “I Honestly Love You” – will not get the job done.

It isn’t the justness of the cause – to quote the President of the United States during his inaugural address – that will keep thuggery at bay, it is the presence of more security and police willing to enfore the law that will.

Posted in Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009


Wasn’t there a board there?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009

protest_dc1Remember these?

On Valentines Day, 2007, a House hearing entitled, “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?” was scratched due to snow.

In 2006, in a speech delivered in New York, Al Gore warned of the imminent dangers of global warming while wind chills approached forty below zero.

In October of last year, another speech by Mr. Gore on global warming – this time at Harvard University – took place while Massachusetts was hit with “near 125-year breaking low temperatures.”

Last year, in Utica, New York, cyclists “braved freezing cold temps” as they promoted global warming awareness.

There are, of course, a plethora of zesty ironies such as these documented.

Global Warming zealots make it increasingly more difficult for satirists and comedians to invent fresh material. Many of these dedicated climate warriors have become living embodiments of self-parody – not just because of their fatuous notions of a planet in peril, but because it isn’t possible to write a script more ironic, more hilarious or more emblematic of liberal doltishness than these real life occurances.

As has been widely reported, what was supposed to be the “nation’s largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change” in Washington on Monday was all but stymied due to – you guessed it – a huge winter storm.

Turnout was, you might say, on the low side.

Eric at the great Vocal Minority website comments:

The event went on, although the turnout was more like hundreds instead of the predicted thousands. You know you’re a hard-core global warming activist when you’re protesting in a ton of snow in March.

He’s also got a handy compilation of other “Gore Effect” type of incidents posted, such as:

– Global warming activists urged to focus on Earth Day rallies and ignore snow as it ‘piles up outside our windows’ (April 17, 2007)

– Obama to global warming demonstrators: ‘This is probably not the weather to hold up those signs…it’s a little chilly today’ (October 28, 2008)

Fox News says that as many as 2,500 nutcases- er, protesters – braved the wintry conditions yesterday, but that figure comes from protest organizers:

…But the shroud of snow wasn’t the only wet blanket in the nation’s capital Monday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called on the architect of the Capitol to stop burning coal at the power plant last week, cancelled her appearance at the rally because her flight to Washington was cancelled.

Some protesters couldn’t make it as dozens of flights in the area were delayed or called off, and some couldn’t face the dangerous roads or blustery weather, leaving hundreds safe, if sorry, back at home.

One protester named Kat had planned to get arrested and be bailed out Monday but decided to stay put and donate her money to a good cause instead.

“I don’t want to travel in the snow today. However, I am donating my bail money to fight mountaintop removal,” she wrote to the Climate Action Web site.

It takes a special kind of person to donate her bail money to help the environment.

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009


The hundred-dollar phrase of the week is “de facto” – as in “Is Rush Limbaugh now the ‘de facto’ leader of the Republican Party?

True, the word had been caroming around main-stream media news sets for a few weeks – particularly since Rush’s now notorious “I hope Obama fails” sound morsel hit the news cycle – but it had quite a revival over the weekend, following his landark speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Saturday. In fact, for most of the weekend, the news channels were devoting almost all of their non-Messianic time allotment to Rush. Anchors, analysts and others of the blathering class have since been falling over themselves trying to figure out who will lead the Republican Party from the ruins of their Obamacratic trouncing. (After all, it was a mandate, wasn’t it?)

De facto this, de facto that…  (It is the “nuance” or “hubris” of 2009).

To liberals, Limbaugh is already the de facto embodiment of Hitler and the de facto personification of racism. Being the de facto leader of the Republicans is almost pedestrian in comparison.

Still, it has been incredibly fun to watch.

Following Limbaugh’s talk on Saturday afternoon, the first words from CNN’s equitable political analyst Bill Schneider’s mouth were:

“Well, it was an angry tone. He was the hero of 1994. Fifteen years ago when Republicans won a big victory in Congress. And that was the year of the angry white men.”

Angry tone?

I have no doubt that Mr. Schneider, along with almost everyone else who comprises what Limbaugh famously calls the “drive-by media,” genuinely heard it that way.

For liberals, any impassioned oratories delivered by conservatives must be filtered and processed as “angry right-wing rhetoric” because to try and substantively deal with the contents of a speech such as Limbaugh’s would reveal the weakness and indefensibility of leftist ideology. Thus, when Leftocrats hear conservatives speak of individualism, liberty and achievement, they hear indignation and acrimony. When conservatives talk about American exceptionalism, liberals hear animosity and exasperation.

By contrast, when liberals hear themselves go on about government as the people’s problem-solver, and the need to level the American playing field by punishing the most successful among us, they see the greatness of America.

CNN’s Schneider went on to foam:

“Well, this was a very angry speech. By the way, they’re not all white and they’re not all men but they are angry conservative voters. They didn’t do so well last year but they’re still angry. The tone of this speech was mocking, bullying, it was full of contempt, and I thought it was a very harsh speech.”

Translated from my brand-new 2009 edition of the ‘Drive-By Media/English” dictionary, Schneider is affirming and validating the Bos-Wash news media mindset – that anything critical of liberalism, i.e. Barack Obama, uttered by any conservative can only be rooted in antagonism – maybe even racism. After all, what the mainstream media does so well – aside from nothing – is portray conservatives as angry and bigoted. The playbook says so.

And conservatives aren’t just wrong, mind you, they’re bad – replete with ulterior motives and underhanded intentions, looking to crush the working man, the struggling mother and the “trying-to-make-ends-meat” family in favor of their white corporate overlords.

Ask anyone who doesn’t think … or calls themselves an independent voter. They’ll tell you so.

All of this right-wing antipathy, of course, came through manifestly through Limbaugh’s speech.

Sample some of the mockery and contempt from Rush’s lips:

“When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential.”


Bitter, scathing, offensive, wasn’t it?  Watching someone drop kick a baby duck would have been less ghastly.

“We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be.”

The scoundrel. Does he also favor open-hand slapping the elderly?

“… I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed.”

Hang him from the highest tree, take him down, and string him up again.

And not even a mention of food stamps.

While the likes of the always-vainglorious Keith Olbermann and the never-interesting Janeane Garofalo carry on about Limbaugh with all the charm of two old men in a nursing home comparing their bowel obstructions, what the American Leftocracy simply doesn’t comprehend is that Limbuagh in not the de facto leader of the Republican Party – nor does he wish to be. He is, however, one of America’s most eloquent and compelling spokesmen for conservatism … and it is conservatism, through world class communicators such as Rush, that must  – and will -reclaim its place as the core of the Republican Party.

– – – – –

And since Rush’s “I hope Obama fails” remark is getting so much play and is so remarkably misunderstood, I am going to once again stand by him and his courageous – and completely correct – position on the matter.

I am REPOSTING RIGHT HERE, something I posted back on January 27, 2009 – an article that prompted more hate-mail and personal attacks than I have gotten since starting this blog – but something I firmly stand by. It is the Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure:

1. 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.

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2009


As someone who spent the majority of his professional life in radio, I cannot overstate the profound impact the great Paul Harvey had on my career. I wanted to take a moment to pay tribute to this icon of broadcasting, a master story-teller and a patriot. He was as influencial as anyone who ever spoke into a microphone.

Paul Harvey died on Saturday at the age of 90.

There will not be another like him.

God rest his soul.

Posted in Talk-Radio | Tagged: | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2009


After my article last week, FUNNY GLOBAL WARMING TIDBIT – PESKY DATA – which I invite you to read if you haven’t already – I received a reply from a reader called Cassandra, who took me to task for what she obviously felt was a typical flat-earth, knee-jerk, right-wing reaction to a story related to global warming.

As I have done on many occasions with other readers, I would like to address Cassandra’s post, point by point.

Even if you haven’t read my piece, or the original article I’m referencing, you’ll still get the gist of it all, I assure you.


Cassandra wrote:

Why is science “leftist hysteria”? Isn’t the scientific method intended to remove bias rather than foster it?

I respond:

It isn’t science. That’s the point. It is instead “leftist hysteria,” quite rightly classified as such because of what has been a long history of unfounded and universally incorrect doomsday scenarios created by agenda-driven, research-money hungry “experts” with leftist worldviews.

For instance, recall that it is with the same fervor and certitude currently fuelling the increasingly ridiculous “global warming” panic that the abundance of stories and studies were published predicting the United States would be overrun with widespread heterosexual AIDS in the 1980s. It was inevitable we were told.

It never happened, of course, despite “consensus” from experts and scientists.

Thirty-five years ago, we were warned that global cooling was going to ravage the Earth when things were “trending” in that direction. Somehow, the world managed to get a bit warmer, after it had gotten cooler, after a warming period, which coincidentally followed a cooling trend.

Let us not forget how we were admonished that humanity would run out of food by 1990. Remember that?

Or how, by 1997, the O-Zone layer would be so damaged due to human activity that the number of cases of ultra-violet-light induced skin cancer would explode to catastrophic levels.

Surely you remember the fear-mongering of how natural resources would be depleted by the year 2000? or how overpopulation was going to be the death knell to humankind?

When agenda trumps truth in the sciences, it is a bad thing, Cassandra.

Cassandra wrote:

Why do many people assume that a “trend” needs to be linear? For example, isn’t it evident that we currently have a stock market trending down even though there are many up days?

I respond:

First, I know of no one was has denied any warming trend. (By most objective standards, temperatures in recent years have leveled off and are starting to “trend” downward).

So what?

There have been warming trends throughout the history of Earth. In fact, there have been trends that put the most recent one to shame. Recall the Ice Age, for example. Obviously, things warmed up enough to melt prodigious amounts of ice without the benefit of SUVs and disposable diapers.

The “hysteria” of the current position lies in the adopting the trinity of climactic disbelief – that not only are temperatures rising, but that the rise must be proven to be triggered by human activity, and then at such a level as to cause catastrophe.

But of course, the real question here is … from what starting point are you basing your trend? Compare temperatures today to the 1970s, and it is generally warmer. Compare them today to the 1930s, the late 1990s or the eleventh century and they’re cooler.

Second, why is it that global warming alarmists automatically believe the world should be colder now? On what do they base that conclusion? Should it have been colder when the Vikings were growing grapes in Newfoundland, centuries before the advent of the automobile and airplanes? Was it too cold during the Little Ice Age between 1200 and 1800?

Cassandra wrote:

Why was the time frame of the “sensor drift” error left out in the discussion? Isn’t it pertinent that this error started in early January of 2008 and was caught and corrected? How come an error that affected less than two months of real time data (now expunged) refutes decades of other data?

I respond:

How come you completely miss the point I’m making?

The year 2008 was reported as being the “second lowest” in terms of how much Arctic Ice exists. The year before, 2007, was reported as being the “lowest.” If the criterion for “warming” is based on how much Arctic Ice exists, then, by definition, it cannot be getting warmer, if the amount of ice “grew” from one year to the next.

To dip into my bag-o-logic, if I have less money and assets this year than I did last year, I cannot be getting wealthier.

If I weigh less this week than I did last week, I cannot be getting fatter.

Before the “drifting sensor” problem was realized, there was believed to be less ice than there really was. This only reinforces my point.

Cassandra wrote:

Also, I thought it would be helpful so include URLs to the actual NSIDC articles, so here are two primary links to the NSIDC info under discussion:

February 18, 2009
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage:

February 26, 2009
Near-real-time data now available:

I respond:

I sincerely appreciate your links to the original articles. I encourage people to read them.

However, none of it – repeat none of it – does anything to further the argument of those who believe that the world is not only getting warmer, but that it is being caused by human beings, and that the result of those man-made temperature rises are catastrophic for the planet.

Seeing as everything that is happening to this planet right now, climactically speaking, has happened before – many, many times, in an endless merry-go-round of climactic cyclical bliss – and the fact that the planet is somehow still here, in one piece, lends nothing to the credibility of these hysterical assertions.

love-my-co2First off, there is no consensus – nor is there evidence – that CO2 causes global warming. There simply isn’t. There is actually more evidence to suggest that CO2 levels increase after warming begins, despite the “facts” peddled in Al Gore’s largely discredited piece of garbage film, An Inconvenient Truth. Besides, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is so minimal as to be nearly insignificant in terms of temperature. Even doubling the amount of CO2 would have little effect on climate.

Second, I have to assume that “global” warming means only the Northern Hemisphere, seeing as whatever warming has been noted over the past few decades has only occurred north of the equator.

Third, the Medieval Warm period was warmer than it is today. How is that possible without smoke stacks, diesel engines and Al Gore’s mouth?

Fourth, does it occur to anyone on the panicked side of the debate that the loss of a multitude of cold climate weather stations in the collapsing Soviet Union in the late 1980s and 1990s somehow, remarkably, inexplicably coincided with the totality of “global temperatures” rising? The fact is, thousands of measuring stations closed in that part of the world during that “death of the Soviet Union” period. Wouldn’t that fact, at least, warrant some consideration from the supposedly unbiased scientific community? Wouldn’t that seem like a logical point to ponder in a debate that has sadly been declared over by such notables as Barack Obama?

By the way … if the debate is over, why are hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars still needed to study this stuff?

Thank you, Cassandra.

In other news, this damned global warming is burying my car under a foot of snow.


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 1, 2009

Last year, while then-candidate Barack Obama was still going on and on about how he would have nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with special interest groups, the National Education Association Representative Assembly was adopting 12 new exciting resolutions. While then-candidate Barack Obama was assuring American voters that he wouldn’t as much as spit on a special interest group, even if it were on fire, the NEA shocked the world by endorsing Barack Obama for President. Of course, in Obamacratic terms, the NEA isn’t really a special interest group to begin with – the same way earmarks aren’t really earmarks, and increasing the deficit isn’t really increasing the deficit. They are about education – and that, by golly, transcends politics.

Take two of these twelve non-political, non-biased, agenda-free, straight-down-the-middle resolutions adopted last year by the NEA.

chavez-and-the-grapesResolution I-31- Cesar Chavez Day, for example, states that the NEA “believes that Cesar Chavez Day should be a state holiday in every state to focus on the importance of human relations.” They go on to say that the day would “promote reflection and action for social justice.

Chavez is a hero to the Left. Whether or not he was a bona-fide communist probably isn’t known for sure, but without question, he most definitely played the part of a Marxist class-warrior with much of his rhetoric, and acted like one through his tactics. However, conveniently forgotten by the Left is the fact that Chavez was against illegal immigration – something today’s Leftocrats wouldn’t exactly find a catchy poster slogan for.

The idea that the NEA would endorse a holiday for this man before standing up for reinstating a day specifically commemorating George Washington, the father of this country, is really all you need to know about them. Further, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Thomas Jefferson and, yes, even Abraham Lincoln deserve national holidays before Cesar Chavez does.

Remember, Washington and Jefferson were slave holders. That means the entirerty of their accomplsihments are effectively invalidated.

Meanwhile, Resolution I-51 sates that the NEA supports the “Right of Redress for Descendants of Slavery.” Quoting directly from the NEA resolution:

“The National Education Association believes that both the nation’s decision to allow the acceptance of ownership of labor were morally flawed at their inception and that a formal apology is long overdue. The Association also believes that all descendants of those who served in bondage possess just cause to seek redress from the federal government for past injustices that have contributed to the institutional racism that exists until this day.”

Here’s an idea.

How about a resolution issued by the descendants of American slavery extending a debt of gratitude to the descendants of those who went against the tide of human history by deciding to pursue the radical concept of ending slavery – an institution that predated America’s involvement in it to the beginning of recorded human existence, touching practically every civilization and culture that has ever kissed the face of the Earth?

Contrary to popular notion, the United States of America did not invent slavery.

And if the NEA (a non-special interest group, remember) can show me where “institutional racism” exists in the United States of America – the least racist and most accommodating nation on the face of the Earth – I’d be most appreciative.

The complete NEA 2008-2009 Resolutions Document is here.

But some in the the NEA weren’t entirely happy with Resolution I-51. It needed to go further, they said.

Thus, NEA issued a “supplement report” to Resolution I-51 that reads as follows (additions underlined and in bold):

reparations1New I. Right of Redress for Descendants of Slavery Supplementary Report

Amend by addition … “Right of Redress for [Descendants of Slavery] Deprivation of Human Rights.” Amend by addition on page 19 of the Supplementary Report, lines 35-36, “the nation’s decision to allow and the acceptance of ownership of labor, the practice of violating treaties, slaughter of innocents, displacement of indigenous peoples-including the forced relocation and the re-education of childrenwere morally flawed. Amend by addition, line 37, “descendants of those who served in bondage, or were deprived of life, land, language, resources, and culture, possess just cause to seek redress.”

Somewhere in the back of the hall Howard Zinn was shaking a tail-feather.

Also interesting to point out is that while the “Redress” issue has no problems passing at the NEA conference, one thing that did not pass was an amendment to an already existing resolution – I-16. Family Planning.

The original resolution reads, in part:

The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom.

What “reproductive freedom” has to do with teaching kids how to master binomials or conjugate verbs is unclear, but I digress.

The NEA shot down an amendament that, according to the North Eastern Ohio Education Association blog, “would have added the words ‘with no position on abortion‘ after the reference to “reproductive freedom.”

In other words, the NEA decided that they couldn’t officially be neutral on the issue of abortion.

Nope, no special interests there.

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