Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for April, 2009


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 28, 2009


These photos (below) are almost two weeks old, I know. (My sense of timing is impeccable).

However, it is something worth revisiting, and certainly a moment in time worth sharing … again.

Without overstating it, the event was as marvelous as any I have ever attended – and easily one of the most inspiring. Despite talking head detractions from the media belt (those who actually covered it), the New York Tea Party was tremendously upbeat and positive. Indeed, it had all the earmarks of a well-attended demonstration – signs, loud voices, unbridaled energy and passionate speakers (including former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich – but it was manifestly different than your run-of-the-mill, off-the-rack rally.

It was concretely patriotic and as unangry a rally as I’ve ever seen. In other words, it was not your typical, barefoot-in-the grass, leftist protest full of visceral attacks from frothing braindeads. It was not an event laced with archetypal negativity and hostility. Rather, it was an overwhelmingly boisterous, thunderous, uplifting gathering of people cheering and standing up for something they truly believe in – their country.

Let’s be clear … the thousands of us who attended the New York City Tea Party were unapologetically adamant, unwavering, loud and unrelenting in opposing the dangerous Obamacratic transformations taking place in the United States – but we knew why we were there, and we zealously spoke about what we were defending.

We were there to demonstrate that we were for the United States of America – not just aimlessly cackling against something.

There was no violence, no littering (this was no inauguration), no hatred, and no personal attacks.

It was decidedly UNliberal in every way.

It was an event that I pray will be only the stepping stone to a greater and far reaching movement of Americans who know that the traditions, institutions and values of this great republic are worth defending.

Not surprisingly, however, there was barely any national coverage of these modern day Tea Parties in the mainstream press. There was some scoffing by elitists, a fair amount of name calling by numbskulled Obamacrats (“right-wing nuts,” “extremists,” and even “racists,” as Janeane Garofalo called us), but the countrywide demonstrations went largely ignored.

I predicted as much.

By contrast, recall the sickening saturation given the handful of pro-Proposition 8 rallies across the country late last year after same-sex marriage was voted down in liberal California. To hear and see how it was being covered by the press, you’d have thought 250 million Americans had taken to the streets to feverishly support the redefinition of marriage.

It was not so. Not even close.

Compare that contrived media blitz to the scant coverage of Tea Parties held on April 15th – in all fifty states.

The sentiment and excitement stirred by what was, in fact, over 700 Tea Parties across the nation that day is worth looking at again, if only for a moment or two – if only to remind us that now, more than ever, Americans who give a damn cannot fall back on the barren ground of dumb complacency. The time is at hand to stand up for the founding principals that have defined the United States of America – and to do so before the likes of President Obama and his liberty-raping, government-expansive transformations become irreparable.

America is about liberty. America is about equality of opportunity. In America, the individual is left to his own devices to build and create whatever he desires.

Leftism, by contrat, is about equality – of outcome.

Liberty and equality are not – thank God – the same.

That I even have to make this statement is illustrative of how far from the Founders’ vision this nation has strayed.

It is the greatest anathema to the today’s leftist – the rugged individualist, fuelled by the liberty endowed by our Creator – that has built this nation. It is the God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that enable a free man to pursue and conquer his dreams, unfettered, without the heavy hand of the State holding him back.  That is what has made the United States the envy and beacon to the world.

America’s unparalleled greatness and unprecedented goodness have come in spite of its government – not because of it.

Like millions and millions of others, I do not want that to end.

I was privileged enough to participate in the New York City Tea Party on April 15th, just one man among thousands and thousands who turned out to jam Broadway by City Hall, in numbers I would not have believed were possible in such a blue city. We were there to show those who wish to tear down and redefine what America is that we will stand up for what we believe in and what is right.

Here are some pictures from deep within the electric crowd in lower Manhattan that day.
















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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2009


Now that there is no more George W. Bush to lambaste, there is obviously nothing happening in Iraq worth reporting anymore – at least not on any large scale or in any detail. Whereas at one time, there were two fronts in the War on Terror being recklessly and carelessly fought to decisive American defeats – as the mainstream media were all too happy to try and convince the American people at every conceivable turn – the departure of the Cowboy President has facilitated the departure of war coverage.

Oh sure, if you look for it, you’ll find some tidbits here and there on the war – especially if a fresh new angle on how President Bush can be retroactively savaged for it is hit upon by an enterprising young journalist – but for the most part, it’s faded from the front burners of the American psyche.

Corporate America is the new Taliban now.

Prior to the Messianic take over of the White House, a mere glimpse at the mainstream news outlets would have convinced even the most disinterested patrons that America was embroiled in the deadliest, most-contentious battles in its history, facing catastrophic defeat with unprecedented casualties.

Since the Messianic Age began, one might have a hard time realizing that this nation was at war at all. Not only are the words “War on Terror” a no-no anymore (by Obamacratic decree), but what have turned out to be the deadliest bombing attacks in a year in Iraq are getting very little play.

I bet you didn’t realize peace had broken out.

From Friday’s New York Times:  

A deadly outburst of violence appears to be overwhelming Iraq’s police and military forces as American troops hand over greater control of cities across the country to them. On Friday, twin suicide bombings killed at least 60 people outside Baghdad’s most revered Shiite shrine, pushing the death toll in one 24-hour period to nearly 150.

Like many recent attacks, the bombings appeared intended to inflame sectarian tensions, to weaken Iraq’s security forces and to discredit its government. 

From Thursday’s Times:

The overall level of violence in Iraq is at its lowest since the American invasion in 2003, and Iraqis have been venturing out to parks, restaurants and nightclubs. But a string of recent attacks, highly organized and carried out under tight security, has raised worries that Baathist and jihadi militants are regrouping into a smaller but still lethal insurgency seeking to reassert itself as the American troop presence on the ground is reduced before a full withdrawal in 2011.

Recall that President Obama announced to the world as part of his “Eroding America’s Strength and Greatness Campaign” the precise date of comprehensive American withdrawal from the Iraqi theater.

No one can accomodate anenemy like our President can.

The moment Bam placed his tootsies upon the water, the war against Islamo-facism became irrelevant and the doomsday needle spun toward the economy  – and thus the war against capitalism and the free market began in earnest.

Posted in Media Bias, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 26, 2009

janet-napolitano1What is it with wanting to somehow involve our neighbors to the north in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? As tempting as it may be at times to want to find something – anything – to blame Canada on, there seems to be a growing misconception as to the role the nation of Canada played in the 9/11 attacks from some here in America – and from people who should know better.

The correct answer, of course, is nothing … as in “Canada had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape or form” … but agendas and truth just don’t play well together.

Our esteemed Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has already shown herself to be both an embarrassment and a joke by not only suggesting that returning war veterans could prove to be terrorist threats themselves, but by saying that the some (or all) of the 9/11 killers used the nation of Canada as a gateway into the United States. How reassuring – and thoroughly nauseating – to know that such a well-informed ignoramus is in place at the head of the Homeland Security table. Of course, this isn’t quite as infuriating as having the President of the United States apologize on foreign soil for the actions of his own country, or watching him bow before foreign leaders, but it is enough to add a bit more ornamentation to the “laughing stock” motif of the Obama administration’s first hundred days.

As it turns out, someone whom you would expect to posses slightly more clarity on the subject of the September 11 attacks – and the entire war against Islamo-fascism, for that matter – is apparently just as bird-brained than a less-than-informed, ignorant Homeland Security Chief. Ostensibly, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain also believes that the 9/11 hijackers made their way into the United States via Canada.

From the Canadian Press:

John McCain is the latest high-profile politician to repeat the diehard American falsehood that the 9-11 terrorists entered the United States through Canada.

Just days after Janet Napolitano, the U.S. homeland security secretary, sparked a diplomatic kerfuffle by suggesting the terrorists took a Canadian route to the U.S. eight years ago, McCain defended her by saying that, in fact, the former Arizona governor was correct.

“Well, some of the 9-11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know,” McCain, last year’s Republican presidential candidate, said on Fox News on Friday.

The Arizona senator’s remarks prompted the Canadian embassy to immediately reissue remarks made earlier this week by Ambassador Michael Wilson, who reminded Americans once again that no 9-11 perpetrators came to the U.S. via Canada.

“Unfortunately, misconceptions arise on something as fundamental as where the 9-11 terrorists came from,” Wilson said.

To the best of anyone’s knowledge, none of the September 11 terrorists were ever in Canada at any time. There is certainly no evidence pointing to that fact, and there is nothing in the official 9/11 report suggesting it. Just because off-teleprompter out-of-the-box numbskulls utter idiocies doesn’t make them true. In truth, it was the United States and its remarkably spongy “Come On In And See America” visa plan that facilitated these scumbuckets’ entry into the country.

No Canucks were used or harmed in the making of the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history.

However, twenty-four innocent Canadians were killed as a result of the attack that morning.

It brings me no great pleasure to say this, but Senator McCain ought to be ashamed of himself. The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 is, without question, the defining event of this country’s recent past. That McCain – a champion of the ongoing War on Terror – would make such a provably inaccurate claim is more embarrassing, given his steadfast and outspoken support of the war effort, than Napolitano’s moronic, “equality uberalis” ramblings. It makes one wonder how the Barack-tabluous media would have covered such a ridiculous gaffe by McCain had he won the election last November.

“President McCain More Stupid Than Bush.”

“McCain Blames McCanada.”

I understand that there are many on both sides of the aisle who are so concerned about offending large chunks of the Latino voting block that they go out of their way to try and convince Americans (and the world) that the northern border of the United States poses just as much of a risk to national security as does the southern border, but there is simply no excuse for John McCain to start sounding like Meghan McCain.


Posted in politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2009

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant, traditionalist

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant, traditionalist

It would simply never occur to me to pose controversial, highly volatile, politically charged questions to beauty pageant contestants – the kind of inquiries that can cause the otherwise unlearned, knee-jerk, shallow-capped leftists among us to launch into personal foul-mouthed attacks as a consequence of not giving the answer they want. Of course, I am not cut from the same intolerant cloth that today’s leftocrats are, so the obviousness of my assertion cannot be overstated.

In fact, it is now abundantly clear that conservative young ladies who wish to be contenders in beauty contests, like the Miss USA pageant held this past weekend, had best stick to showing off their legs, smiles and figures and not open their mouths to share opinions on anything that may fall out of lockstep with showbiz Leftocracy – even if specifically asked. Beauties right-of-center are apparently better off seen and not heard if they have any hope of actually winning, while people like the contemptible Perez Hilton – a judge in last weekend’s pageant best known as a celebrity gossip blogger – are often obscene and regularly absurd.

More on this in a moment.

For those who came in after the opening credits, the Miss USA pageant saw Miss California, Carrie Prejean – one whom many felt was the odds-on favorite to win the crown – spark controversy by answering a question from pageant judge Perez Hilton about same-sex marriage with a response that didn’t sit well with the ever-tolerant Leftocracy.

The question:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Naturally, this is precisely what beauty pageant contestants should be addressing when competing for the crown – contentious, divisive, polarizing topics, right? Short of a bra and panty pillow fight, or a game of naked quarters, what else could have the power to breathe much-needed life into such an event?

Honestly, what the hell kind of question is that to ask of a Miss USA pageant contestant? What would possess the ever-abrasive, never interesting and exceedingly infantile gossip-hound, Mr. Hilton – a man who would lose to a strand of typhoid in a popularity contest – to choose such a flaming potato of a question?

To her great credit, Miss Prejean’s answer was solid, concise, clarifying, and yes – compassionate:

I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.

A good portion of the audience applauded her answer while Mr. Hilton gave her an “I’d crash a mayonnaise jar over your head right now if I could” kind of look.

Of course, this prompted the foul-mouthed pustule, Perez Hilton, to issue a response, after the pageant, via video blog.

His response is a study in leftist compassion:




Perez Hilton

Perez Hilton

Hello. Okay. So, Miss USA literally just finished and I have to make a video blog. Everyone’s going to be talking about it. I was the You Tube moment of the show, the pageant, when I asked Miss California her question, and when she gave the worst answer in pageant history. She got booed. I think that was the first time in Miss USA – ever – that a contestant has been booed.

Now, let me explain to you. She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she’s a dumb bitch, okay? This is how a person with half a brain answers the question I posed her … Well, if I was Miss California, with half a brain, I would have said, “Mmm, Perez. That’s a great question. That’s a very hot topic in our country right now, and I think that is a question each state should decide for themselves, because that’s how our forefathers designed our government, you know? The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal.” Something along those lines, but she didn’t. She gave an awful, awful answer which alienated so many people …

If that girl would have won Miss USA, I would have gone up on stage, I shit you not, I would have gone up on stage, snatch that tiara off her head and run out the door.




I choose my words very carefully, and I wish to assert – in no uncertain terms – that Mr. Hilton is a moral degenrate of the highest order – not because of his sexual orientation, but because of his disgusting personal attacks unleashed on Carrie Prejean for not answering the question the way he would have liked it answered. That he would have the audacity to attack the intelligence of Miss Prejean (his command of the language is breathtaking) is akin to a skunk asking his buddy the turtle to slap on some deodorant.

First, I’ve played her response several times, and I hear no boos coming from the audience. There may have been, but it was not reproduced on the video tape. In fact, the cheers that followed her answer were noticeably louder than those that followed Hilton’s comment about the “legalization” of same-sex marriage in four states.

Second, The idea that the great thinker and historical scholar, Perez Hilton, has even the faintest concept of what he’s talking about when he speaks of state’s rights would immediately have me wondering if he would extend the same sentiment toward something like abortion – i.e. overturning Roe vs Wade and sending the issue back to the states. (Of course, the people of the state of California voted no to same-sex marriage, but why sully things with pesky facts?) Seeing as Mr. Hilton is keen to reference the Founders and the sovereignty of the states, perhaps his views on the Founders’ intent – prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and its “equal protection under the law” provision – would make for some interesting theoretical banter, especially on the issues of slavery and official state religions. Maybe he could pen a column or two, or tap into his Constitutional prowess via his blog – sandwiched in between blurbs about Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, of course. It could prove instructive.

Of course, if someone can distinguish between Miss California’s position on same-sex marriage and that of the President of the United States, I’d be more than willing to listen. I’ve been combing through You Tube looking for Perez’s “dumb bitch” commentary on our 44th President, but have come up empty. I’m probably looking in the wrong places. If someone can point me in that direction, I’d be most appreciative.

The truth is, to Perez and his angry ilk, Miss Prejean is (at the very least) intolerant and void of compassion, yet Hilton’s You Tube rant is not only the height of intolerance and the lack of compassion, it is mean and insulting.

By contrast, Miss Prejean was anything but mean and insulting. She simply answered a question posed to her in the most respectful and compassionate manor possible. She hurled no expletives or attacks. She went out of her way to offend no one. That one can defend the millenia-old definition of marriage and then be attacked for it shows the sad state of existence this country finds itself in.

Again, to be a conservative is synonymous with being bad.

Compassion is now defined as agreement.

This brings me to Shanna Moakler, Miss USA pageant co-director, who appeared as a guest on CBS’s Early Show on Tuesday:

You know, I have to applaud her, that she was willing to miss out on the opportunity of being Miss USA, you know, to stay true to her convictions.


And frightening.

In other words, to posses a traditional view of society is an automatic disqualifier if one aspires to win the Miss USA pageant. Moakler unambiguously acknowledges that one must either think like a leftist or be a liar in order to wear the tiara. Miss California’s view that the definition of marriage should remain in tact, while somewhat applaud-worthy, is what caused her to “miss out,” according to Moakler. To believe that marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman is to give up any hope of ever winning Miss USA.

She continues:

But on the same token, you know I think she’s muddied the waters a little bit by making – uh – her question was insensitive and it’s now become more about compassion in the way she answered her question.

It always fascinates me when people use phrases that are inappropriate and mean nothing. How it is that Miss Prejean “muddied the waters” when her answer to a ridiculous and unsuitable question was as clear as a Barney Frank lisp during a House sub-committee meeting is uncertain.

What exactly does Moakler mean by “muddying the water?”

What Moakler did clarify, however, is that it isn’t possible to disagree with one’s given position and still have compassion. This is precisely the same school of thought that says those who wish to see the definition of marriage unchanged must hate homosexuals.

Incoherence, thy name is liberalism.

I must ask … What would have been a genuinely compassionate response from someone who believes in traditional marriage?

Posted in American culture, Conservatism, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, social issues | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 20, 2009


Not that Democrats, liberals and other assorted children are ever held to account by the mainstream media for the idiocies they utter, the falsehoods they espouse or the tidbits they peddle, but for what it’s worth, I’m more than willing – as a small-time, no-name, blog jockey interested in what’s right – to do whatever I can to help keep an already lopsided ship from completely capsizing. (Isn’t that awfully kind of me?)

Like them, I am a tally-keeper. I like to keep track of that which the media does not.

Leftocrats, as anyone who pays attention knows, are big on noting anniversaries and milestones – particularly when the landmark moment runs antithetical to the agendas that drive them to the vapid chasms where they dwell and whine.

Take the war.

Recall when the American casualty totals in the Iraq War reached enticingly delicious, headline-friendly round numbers – 2,000, 3,000, 4,000. Was there any available space to be found in newsprint or on news websites that did not explode in orgasmic delight over reporting these morbid mileposts?

A collective change of undergarments were needed by the mainstreamers as they reveled in the death toll.

Recall how the airwaves were saturated with their objective venom when the one-year anniversary of President Bush’s infamous “mission accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln came along. It was all anyone in America heard from the mainstream media – how George Bush misled or lied or whatever. It was as if those charged to report the news in an unbiased, objective way were glad – positively giddy, you might say – at the difficult days America was having in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad.

Actually, it wasn’t even a potential American defeat or the tally of the fallen warriors that fuelled lib contempt of the war. (I don’t think most of them could care less one way or another, to be honest). Rather, because the war was George W. Bush’s, it immediately (instinctively) became an anathema to the Left.

If Bush had found the cure to cancer, the Left would have portrayed malignant tumors as victims.

They didn’t hate George W. Bush because of the war. The hated the war because of George W. Bush.

Recall that as the situation in Iraq improved, hardly any mention of America’s victories and accomplishments there ever found their way from the cackling tongues of the media masses – and there were many, especially after The Surge was implemented. The New York Times, Washington Post, et al, simply wouldn’t dirty their pages with American triumphss, lest it directly conflict with their anti-war agendas. Yet, every car bomb, explosion or otherwise loud boom drew “breaking news” crawls.

When it became clear that The Surge was working, not only was it regularly glossed over by the leftist media (redundant, I know), but the war became almost invisible and irrelevant to them.

In the spirit of commemoration, I’d like to take a moment to note the two-year anniversary (yesterday) of these words uttered by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada:

I believe, myself, that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense – and you have to make your own decision to what the President knows – that this war is lost and that The Surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.

It was, in fact, one of the more tasty Democrat foot-in-mouth moments not subject to mass-media scrutiny, anniversary fanfare or round table revisiting.

What Reid was attempting to do was draw some sort of parallel between President George Bush and President Lyndon Johnson more than forty years earlier. Johnson knew in 1964 that the war in Vietnam was lost, according to Reid.

That’s why I’m here – noting it for posterity – with the United States poised for victory in Iraq.

Here’s a 2007 flashback from the Fox News Channel. (Warning: Senator Harry Reid is speaking in this video clip. May cause nausea, disgust or general apathy).

Don’t you just get that warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that it is the party of Harry Reid that now holds the security of the United States of America in their hands?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 15, 2009

Greetings all!

Thanks to all who have sent well-wishes!

The move has been completed! I am now in Staten Island. It has been hectic, exhausting, expensive and something I wouldn’t wish on most of my enemies.

I will be back in full force here on ROMAN AROUND on Monday, April 20, 2009.

It’s also TEA PARTY DAY across America.

I will be attending New York City’s Tea Party tonight and will post pictures.


God Bless America.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 5, 2009

Believe me, I was dreading this. This is something I hate to do, but family comes first.

I’m “forced” to take a blog break … and I am not thrilled.

I love this blog. I love writing. I have so much fun doing it – especially because there is so much that liberals do that feed hungry scribblers like me.

As many of you have obviously noticed, I have not been keeping up with daily entries on this blog. Up until very recently, I was posting something here on a daily basis – something I was very proud of.

And I wasn’t just posting links.

I was actually writing things and expressing opinions, sharing thoughts, formulating ideas and so on – also something I was quite proud of. Unfortunately, the blog has suffered a bit in recent times due to personal circumstances that have been consuming large portions of my time.

In short, my entire family is uprooting and moving from Brooklyn to Staten Island (the only borough in New York City that consistently votes Republican, by the way).

I would rather have a cheese grater taken to the back of my leg, or be forced to look at Michelle Obama campaign speeches again, or even flip through Rosie O’Donnel’s laundry hamper than pack up this old house and schlepp everything across the Verrazano Bridge.

It is something that has been in the works for a while, but the zero hour is at hand. Up until recently, I have been able to squeeze in at least a little time to keep the blog up to date. Sadly, the nitty-gritty has arrived and I am now fully engulfed in it.

And as any of you know who have pulled up roots and moved your entire lives to a new location, it is no fun, never easy, fantastically stressful, painfully expensive and thoroughly annoying.

The next couple of weeks will prove hectic, to say the very least.

Since I am the only one who writes on Roman Around, the blog has clearly suffered – and just when the hits-per-day were starting to grow almost exponentially.

Thus, I am announcing a scheduled hiatus until Monday, April 20, 2009.

At that time, I will resume blogging here as I always have – on a daily basis.

Thanks to each and every one of you who have been writing and checking up on things. I assure you, all is well. I am honored to have you all as regular visitors to my blog.

I will send out an e-mail when the blog is back in full swing – Monday, April 20, 2009.

I will be back, better than ever (or as obnoxious as ever, depending on where you’re at).

God Bless You.

And God Bless America.

Posted in Announcement | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 3, 2009

Liberals offend easily.

It is what motivates them to policy decisions – to do all they can to eradicate that which offends (unless the offended are right of center).

For instance, inequality (of outcome) is offensive to the Left, hence big government. Leftists would rather see everyone poorer and more equal. Leftists don’t aspire to elevate the unsuccessful. They wish to punish those who have succeeded by bringing them back to the pack.

While I am generally inclined to leave being “offended” to children, Leftists and other non-adults, there are things that conservatives admittedly find offensive – and they generally have to do with the tearing down by Leftocrats of the traditions and institutions that make the United States of America the greatest nation the world has ever known.

That’s usually And so, just over two months into his reign, President Obama – who has played the “I inherited a deficit” card more often than a Kennedy’s lips touches rum – has guaranteed that the taxes to be paid by my children, and their yet to exist children, will go up – and not just casually. The new Big Man has decided that what was “left to him” by the previous administration was so horrific, so unmanageable, so debilitating that it has become necessary to deal future generations ridiculous tax burdens out of “necessity.”

And while the brain-dead across the pond continue to expend energy, saliva and vocal chords in gushing over the visiting American royal family, realities that would have already been broached tenfold by the press had anyone not named Obama been at the helm, are being largely ignored by the disciple pool who are just happy to be along for the ride.

Hey, as long as the First Lady can show off her arms and her latest whatever it is she is wearing, all is right (or rather, Left) with the world, yes?

It’d be nice if someone charged with the task of being a journalist found the testicular fortitude to ask the President how the astronomical debt he is proposing will trigger the prosperity Bam has assured the American people.

That would seem to be a somewhat relevant question to pose.

But then again, Obama’s assurances mean nothing, do they?

Recall that the word “earmark” was brutalized and redefined as a “cover your tush” maneuver by Bam. Remember how this was the worst economy since the Great Depression, before it became worse than the Great Depression, before it somehow became sound again.

Michael Boskin writes:

What of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.

What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.

These deficits are so large for a prosperous nation in peacetime — three times safe levels — that they would cause the debt burden to soar toward banana republic levels. That’s a recipe for a permanent drag on growth and serious pressure on the Federal Reserve to inflate, not the new era of rising prosperity that Mr. Obama and his advisers foresee.

Let’s keep in mind that this budget does not yet deal with what will be an exponential Social Security cost boom down the road.

Rail all you like against the inherited deficits of the Bush administration – recall that President Obama and the Dems supported the Bush bailouts – but Obama’s nonsensical, mythical proposed $2 trillion “cut” of the national debt is about as substantive as Obama’s “work experience and qualifications” box on his resume.

As Boskin explains:

That was mostly a phantom cut from an imagined 10-year continuation of peak Iraq war spending.

In other words, it’s like saying I am proposing a home budget that includes buying a new $50,000 car every year. Then, when I don’t buy the car, I make the claim that I have saved $50,000. Over the course of ten years, I can say I have save half-a-million bucks.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Media Bias | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2009

obama and queenFrom the “If This Had Been Anyone Else” file …

President Obama probably won’t recognize the sound, but what he is hearing is the resonance of the United States of America turning rosy red in embarrassment. (And you didn’t think such a thing could make a distinctive sound, did you?) It isn’t an explosive noise, or anything that will scare anyone. Rather, it is the sound of a mortified assemblage of heads shaking in shame – a sensatory humiliation that may not be picked up by the normal human ear, but is certainly distinguishable to dogs and Messiahs alike.

It has a certain “you’ve got to be kidding me” timbre to it that most non-Saviors cannot realize.

For the nation who has everything, including a 25 Classic Film DVD set that cannot be played there, what else could an American President offer as a gift – outside of beef jerky and JC Penny gift certificate packs – that could leave a lasting impression?

What gift could the most powerful man in the world offer the Queen of England?

How about an Ipod?

From the UK Telegraph:

Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed signed photograph of herself and the Duke of Edinburgh – apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.

It is believed the Queen already has an iPod, a 6GB silver Mini version she is said to have bought in 2005 at the suggestion of Prince Andrew.

See, this is why I am not President. It would not occur to me to present an MP3/video player to British royalty.

A PlayStation 3, sure. But an Ipod, no.

To be fair, according to USA Today reporter Richard Wolf, an aide to the President later told him that Obama also gave the Queen a “rare songbook signed by Richard Rodgers.”

Bam saves.

Earlier, Mr Obama had spoken of his admiration for Her Majesty but indicated that his wife was handling the details of their royal meeting. “There’s one last thing that I should mention that I love about Great Britain, and that is the Queen,” he said at the end of his joint press conference with Gordon Brown.

“And so I’m very much looking forward to meeting her for the first time later this evening. And as you might imagine, Michelle has been really thinking that through — because I think in the imagination of people throughout America, I think what the Queen stands for and her decency and her civility, what she represents, that’s very important.”

I am willing to take hits for what will surely be interpreted by some as callous, partisan, lock-step nitpicking on my part – just another unknown right-wing blogger looking for anything to chide the President on.

Not that he hasn’t given even the mildest of critics opportunity after opportunity to do so.

In the grand scheme, it is, admitettedly, a “non-story” – but it wouldn’t be if the GOP were at the helm.

Some choice comments on this story from the UK Telegraph website:


Dear People of the United Kingdom, please accept my sincerest apologies, this is so embarrassing. We usually are more classy in the USA. Perhaps we should subject ourselves to the crown again. Perhaps we can’t handle it after 200 years after all!

To our British cousins – Please forgive our once-great country for sending an idiot to represent us. Unfortunately, Obama will continue to embarrass us with his bumbling, inept foreign policy. We did not learn a lesson with Jimmy Carter.

George Bush, though mistaken on some issues, was genuine, resolute and enamored of his country and the principles on which it was founded – characteristics completely lacking in this Kenyan impostor who achieved power through deceit, thuggery and slick self-promotion. I believe it will not be long before the vast majority of Americans and Brits alike rue the day he ever came on the scene.

Note to Michelle: Don’t give ANY more presents. Ask someone who has experience giving – not taking – to do this important diplomatic task for you, and make sure it’s not another Leftist. Leave the job up to a Conservative grownup.

Ha! Obama probably likes watching footage of himself all the time but I sincerely doubt that Her Majesty is in any way narcissistic. And doesn’t she take he favorite cameraman everywhere with her to do the official shoot? What a poorly thought out gift. “In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed photograph of herself – apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.” Nothing extra? Not so special, then, is he?
-Expat in the USA

Reportedly, along with video and stills of the Queen’s 2007 visit to America, the Ipod contains a collection of show tunes, including selections from West Side Story and Hair.

I probably do not need to add anything at this point.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 1, 2009

If Evan Bayh were running here, everyone would be covered.

All we need is Evan Bayh to run. Then everyone's happy.


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