Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for May, 2009


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 29, 2009

barracks four at gitmo - this arrow points to mecca

barracks four at gitmo - this arrow points to mecca

This is one of those instances when the needle spikes heavily into the red on the “Obvious” meter.

If such a thing as a relevant “non-story” exists – one that might be extracted from the “Did You Know The Sky Is Blue” file – it is the reality that some of the prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have actually gone back into the terrorism business. It’s as shocking as finding out that a Hollywood actor is going “green.”

The revelation that some ex-Gitmo prisoners have returned to the vocations from whence they came – blowing up innocents, preparing for a profusion of virgins in the afterlife – should amaze no one. It would be akin to contending that some prisoners who are released from jails in this country actually go back and commit more crimes.

Did you also know that water is wet?

Still, the significance of this cannot be overstated.

From Fox News:

The Pentagon said Tuesday it has fingerprints, DNA, photos or reliable intelligence to link 27 detainees to the battlefields since their release from the prison on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

That’s about 5 percent of the 540 terror suspects released from the prison. Another 9 percent of freed Guantanamo detainees are suspected to have rejoined the terror activity. That’s 74 detainees in all.

“What this tells us is, at the end of the day, there are individuals, that if released, will again return to terrorist activities,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday.

Some constitutional lawyers have disputed the data because it is not specific about the evidence used to track the detainees.

The Pentagon said all the detainees captured, and in most cases held, for years at Guantanamo were tied to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or other foreign fighter groups.

It was interesting to read some of the comments from Obamaniacs at the website regarding this story.

Among the more fatuous lines of thinking I came across is one that (naturally) takes aim at former President George W. Bush.  The idea is that the people released from Gitmo were set free while Bush was still President, thus the blame for any terrorist activity or acts of war that eminate from any of the big 540 can be placed directly at the feet of former President.

Yet another inherited problem for President Messiah to have to contend with.

(Couldn’t we just let him finish his waffle?)

This logic, presumably, is aimed to refute those who express disdain and outrage over President Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo (like me). According to the dancing Obamacrats, those of us quick to attack the current President for his decision to close the facility ought to sling their poison arrows at former President Bush for allowing terrorists to run free under his watch. After all, most of the Gitmo-folk would never have even considered engaging in such a deplorable way of life had the Muslim-hating Bush not driven them to it. (Remember, just a few days ago, President Obama said Gitmo’s mere existence has caused Al Qaeda recruitment to increase).

Is there anything that requires less thought than the “Blame America First” approach?

Indeed, there is a cartoonish myth that exists among Leftocrats and screeching anti-war types that many of those held in Gitmo shouldn’t even be there – that they were innocently living their lives, minding their own businesses, exchanging eggplant recipes, bothering no one, when they were suddenly and ferociously abducted by American gun-toting, bible-thumping, Qur’an desecrating, anti-Muslim military men with bad attitudes and a whole lot of artillery.

If anything is further from the truth, I’d love to see the brochure.

typical gitmo cell - how inhumane

typical gitmo cell - how inhumane

That I even have to pose these questions is exasperating enough, but as I regularly ask my liberal friends (without ever getting a sufficient response), is it not clear by now that the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are a different breed than the ordinary, off-the-rack, garden variety bad guys that occupy our nation’s jails? Isn’t it obvious that these dregs of society exist in a league all their own? Isn’t it clear what separates these lowlifes from others?

Unlike the armed robbers, rapists, murderers, and other detestable examples of human debris that populate our prisons, the Gitmo “detainees”  are a direct threat to national security.

That’s the key.

The prisoners of Guntanamo Bay are a threat to national security.

These are people picked up on the fields of battle, waging war against the United States – those who do not wear the uniform or insignia of a specific nation. These are not “wrong place at the wrong time” halo-wearers snatched from libraries while studying for their medical degrees. These are not innocents rounded up at soccer games or kidnapped from neighborhood florists.

These are terrorists.

It really isn’t hard to understand – for those who allow their synapses to fire correctly.

Because of this unique status, the Gitmo crowd cannot be treated as typical criminals. They cannot be afforded Constitutional rights. Matters of national security cannot be put on display for public consumption in a court room.

This is war.

Even if the argument had a scintilla of credence – that Bush is to blame for releasing these terrorists, therefore conservatives who oppose Obama’s proposed closing of Gitmo are being, at the very least, hypocritical – what exactly has President Obama done or proposed that would change that situation for the better? President Obama stands firm in wanting to see Gitmo closed, although there is isn’t a single reason that can justify it (other than attempting to get people around the world to “like us” again), nor is there any plan in existence that betters it.

Guantanamo Bay exists because it works.

This “non-story” highlights two important points – one, that Guantanamo Bay must be kept open to house those enemy combatants deemed genuine terror threats against America, and two, that the process of releasing anyone from its confines had better be an undertaking so difficult and complex that blindfolded neurosurgery would seem easy by comparison.

(The photos were taken by US Army Sgt. Sara Wood in 2006. The entire set can be seen here).


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 28, 2009

During the first hour of his radio program on Thursday, Rush Limbaugh said that the country is failing because President Obama is succeeding.

I happen to agree.

Following the Messiah’s “You ain’t seen nothing yet” comment at a fundraiser in front of a bunch of rich Hollywood liberals on Wednesday – a comment that literally struck fear into my heart (along with a sprinkling of nausea) – I have decided to re-post one of my most requested pieces – The Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure.

This was originally posted on 27 January 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

This particular list is a breathing document.

Posted in Big Government, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 27, 2009

sonia sotomayor

sonia sotomayor

From the “Man, You’re Going To Get Killed for This One” file …

Everything yesterday was about Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s choice to replace David Souter on the Surpreme Court of the United States – and rightly so.

It was obviously a newsworthy event.

Quite literally, every newscast from every news outlet from every corner of the nation made it a point to include the fact that if Sotomayor does become the next Supreme Court justice – and what’s to stop her – she will be the first Hispanic to do so.

While I admit it to be an interesting tidbit in a “trivial pursuit” sort of way, my instinct was to be far more concerned – in fact, exclusively concerned – with her position on the role of the courts and whether or not she is going to be as liberal as Souter.

Silly me, this was my focus – her record. Not her upbringing, her neighborhood in the Bronx or her adversities.

Ethnicity was at the very bottom of the list, just after “favorite yellow vegetable” on matters of relevance.

If I had a dime for every time I heard the word “Latina” yesterday, I could almost afford lunch in Manhattan, or a new Porsche.

Thus, without equivocation or reservation, let me state for the record, that when it comes to the ethinicity of Sonia Sotomayor, I couldn’t give a rat’s belly button what she is.

I don’t care.

I really don’t.

Latina liberals are just as misguided about things as white liberals.

Posted in American culture, Supreme Court | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 26, 2009


Over at the great Dirty Rotten Scoundrels blog, “Sherri” has posted a letter that talk show host Neil Boortz read on his radio program last week. It’s something that deserves more than the negligible amount of exposure it has received – and in speaking with friends who consider themselves well-informed and up-to-speed on things that go largely ignored by the main-stream media, it really has been overlooked.

Certainly, this is the type of letter that would almost inevitably prompt some enterprising investigative reporter at CNN or MSNBC to create a special “The Economy Hits Home” heart-string tugging report, or a Dateline NBC story about “Everyday Americans Feeling the Sting of a Bad Economy,” had anyone else but Obama been sitting in the White House.

(Recall the story that CNN ran into the dirt late last year of the lady and her dog living in her vehicle in California – a tragic victim of Bush’s “rich man good, working man bad” economy.)

Here is the text of the letter “Sherri” has posted:

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as “new,” nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.



This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.


I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.


George C. Joseph

President & Owner

Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

Can there be any doubt that across America there exist many Mr. Josephs – honest, hard-working entrepreneurs who have built their successes one step at a time, utilizing the free market to the extent that their desire, talent, ambition and God-given liberty will allow them, who are now dismayed and outraged to feel the heavy hand of government “fundamentally transforming” the way business is conducted in this country?

This is as frightening as it is infuriating.

Please also see this post at the Dirt Rotten Scoundrels blog, originally from

A story in the New York Times shines a light on some reasons for the Committee of Chrysler Affected Dealers to challenge the car company’s bankruptcy efforts. The element common to all of the dealers profiled is that they did extraordinary things Chrysler asked them to do, such as buy too many cars and combine franchises at their own expense, only to find out they had been chosen for termination after bankruptcy.

Chrysler isn’t buying back the inventory that sits on dealer lots — inventory that, in some cases, Chrysler specifically asked dealers to take too much of in order to help make the company look better for sale. Banks have also dropped many dealers because they no longer have new-car franchises, making it even harder to sell the cars they have.

Fundamental transformation, indeed.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009


Are you aware that recruitment into Al Qaeda was bolstered because of the existence of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay? Did you know it became a symbol for that recruitment? Did you ever stop to consider that because the United States kept known or suspected terrorists under lock and key at Gitmo that otherwise complacent, law-abiding folks were compelled to join the ranks of Al Qaeda? Doesn’t it make sense that as a direct result of the actions of the United States of America, and the very existence of Guantanamo Bay, terrorism remains alive and well?

How do I know this?

The President of The United States has said so.

He has effectively placed the blame at the feet of his own country for the recruitment of otherwise halo-sporting, olive-branch carrying people into the Al Qaeda network. If not for maintaining a facility that affords a collection of human debris far more respect and conciliation than they deserve – a place where American soldiers, in order to accommodate their prisoners, are not even allowed to touch the Qur’an with their bare hands – the world would see Al Qaeda’s numbers shrinking and world opinion of America shooting up exponentially.

Bam said on Thursday:

Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol to help Al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”

Pray tell, how ever did Al Qaeda recruit folks into its ranks before Gitmo came along?

Stripping away the mesmerizing dulcet tones that wrap themselves around the text of his speech like a ravenous rattler on a field mouse, attempting to find any real meaning in what Obama says can become a full-time vocation.

According to Obama, Gitmo’s mere existence created terrorists.

Interesting logic.

In a nutshell, according to my Obama/English dictionary – no Gitmo would have to mean fewer terrorists.

Does that mean, for instance, the existence of maximum security prisons serve to recruit people to become criminals? Would violent felons rethink things if jails were closed? If certain penitentiaries were shut down as a sign of good will toward malcontents and miscreants everywhere, would crime suddenly plummet?

Thus, can one draw the conclusion that fewer prisons mean fewer criminals?

Do liberals ever listen to the things they say?

And how many people have been held at Gitmo in its entire existence? Hundreds? Is the President aware that there are tens of thousands of people involved in terrorist groups the world over that are not Al Qaeda?

To hear it from the president, the war isn’t about fighting the evil that is Islamo-facism. That kind of big-tent thinking can get you in real trouble. It’s all about Al Qaeda, stupid.

And that’s it.

(Love that renowned liberal nuance).

Lord help us.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009

Our Commander-In-Chief

Our Commander-In-Chief

Let’s say, for instance, a man – I’ll call him “Bip” – is suffering from a severe headache at work. Bip tries various things to try and ease the pain, but nothing has proven successful. Finally, after trying a host of new age medications and techniques to no avail, Bip decides to try some good old fashioned headache powder. He is no fan of headache powder – never has been – but killing the pain is his priority.

Twenty minutes after taking it, the pain has subsided and he is able to function “normally” again.

Now, let’s say another person  – I’ll call him “Pain” – comes along who is adamantly anti-headache powder, for whatever reason. Pain has a passionate dislike for the stuff. You might sat he is ideologically wired to hate it. In fact, for the sake of this argument, let’s pretend that Pain is so opposed to the use of headache powder that he has actually led crusades to do away with it in the workplace.

Pain finds out through the grapevine that Bip had the audacity to use the dreaded powder to beat back his horrible headache. Pain learns that others have done the same. He obviously isn’t happy. In fact, he is livid. Headache powder should never be used at work, he says with a raised fist.

Pain runs directly to the boss to protest:

The decisions that were made over the last several years to allow headache powder in the work place, when there are so many other methods to combat headaches, has established an ad hoc approach for fighting headaches that is neither effective nor sustainable.”

The boss nods.

Pain is smooth, articulate and always sounds like he knows what he is talking about. (You’d have to be to lead workplace crusades against headache powder, wouldn’t you?)

Despite the fact that the headache powder did take care of Bip’s headache, the assertion has been made by Pain that headache powder is ineffective. Despite the preponderance of evidence that shows how successful headache powder has been at combating painful craniums, Pain continues to stand firm. The fact that Bip is now walking around, functioning in the workplace, free of hurt thanks to the headache powder seems to be irrelevant to Pain. The use of headache powder, according to Pain, is “neither effective nor sustainable.”

Pain is not backing down even though the realities that contradict his claims keep smacking him in the puss.

Absurdity at its best, yes.

With this analogy in mind, let’s now move from the pretend world of a contrived headache powder controversy to the real world of adults and liberals. Let’s substitute Pain – the anti-headache powder crusader – with the President of the United States. I’ll call him Barack Obama. And instead of headache powder, let’s use former President Bush’s methods of prosecuting the War on Terror as the target of Obama’s criticism.

Said President Obama on Thursday morning:

“The decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable.”

Understanding that cold hard reality can be a tough thing to wrap one’s mind around – especially when that reality rains down on the childlike worldviews and fairy-tale parades that drive liberal thought – this goes far beyond making the case for “two-plus-two equals six.”

This is sheer denial.

This reflex on the part of Obama and his dancing Obamacrats to continually trash the previous administration at every turn is beyond tedious. To do so while asserting complete falsehoods is equally embarrassing. President Obama is not entitled to his own set of facts.

Mr. Obama, how many terrorist attacks on America have there been over the past eight years?

This matters.

That this point even has to be made is both tragic and laughable, but at the risk of stating the glaringly obvious, the lack of a terrorist attack in nearly eight years is a good thing Yet, this reality is something regularly dismissed by Leftocrats across the board as too simplistic to mean anything, grossly irrelevant in the grand scheme, and hardly the result of anything undertaken by President Bush. Obamacrats view the absence of a terrorist attack as being attributable to anything and everything but the initiatives undertaken by President Bush. 

It’s osmosis, or luck, or a Muslim awakening, or climate change, or something.

The fact of the matter is, the absence of a terrorist attack on this country since 9/11 is the primary indcator in measuring the effectiveness of the policies employed by President Bush in defending the American people.

bam and bushWith the same verve that President Obama has thus far used to redefine terms like “earmarks” and “tax cuts,” he is reconstructing – without challenge – the word “effective.” Thus, according to the fluidly opaque President of the United States, his predecessor was ineffective in the way he prosecuted the War on Terror – despite the conspicuous void of a single terrorist attack against the United States.

If one does not measure the level of effectiveness in the way the United States has defended herself since 9/11 by the lack of attacks against her, then how?

By how many people overseas say they love us?

How many attacks have been thwarted thanks to Bush administration initiatives like The Patriot Act? The answer is several – including a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.

How much information was obtained through the very selective use of waterboarding of three – yes, only three – individuals? The answer is plenty – including information that led to the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks.

If eight years of George Bush were “ineffective” in fighting Islamo-facist terrorism, what can be said for the previous eight years under President Bill Clinton, where American interests were attacked time and time again, including the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the first World Trade Center attack?

President Bush’s ability to draw unrelenting blame and ridicule for keeping the country free from further attack during the last seven-and-a-half years of his Presidency should be astounding to those of us who think, but it isn’t. His actions, which kept the country safe in the aftermath of 9/11, should be the object of universal high praise and gratitude, but they aren’t. While London and Madrid suffered devastating terrorist attacks, attempted strikes against America – including a comprehensive plot that included an attack against JFK Airport in New York – were snuffed out.

As talk show host Dennis Prager regularly says, “First tell the truth, then state your opinion.”  To deny the effectiveness of Bush administration policies in the ongoing War on Terror is to deny reality.

Of course, this is the modern liberal motif – to wish something was so, pass it off as reality, and then hope for the best.

In that context, I suppose an argument can be made that if one says it long enough, two and two may eventually equal six.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009


Posted in military | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 21, 2009

home-grown terrorist james cromitie

home-grown terrorist james cromitie

A hearty, fist-pumping, robust “attaboy” goes out to both the FBI and the NYPD this morning for the arrests of four would-be terrorists in New York yesterday. A murderous plot that included blowing up at least two Bronx synagogues and shooting down military aircraft was thwarted after a year-long undercover operation.

Well done, ladies and gentleman.

Please take an enormous slice of gratitude from petty cash.

Three of the four aspiring examples of full-fledged human debris are “home-grown” vermin, while the fourth is an immigrant of Haitian descent. The New York Daily News reports that at least three of them are “jailhouse converts” to Islam, bitterly angry over Muslim deaths in Afghanistan.

(It’d be intersting to guage their level of anger at the Muslims who murdered thousands of other Muslims in places like Iraq.)

So naturally, with bitterness boiling on the front burners of their cerebral stovestops, what better way to express their discontent and rage than targeting Jews in a multi-synagogue bomb scheme in the Bronx?

Have these murderous thugs not been paying attention to President Barack Obama and his, “Let’s sit down and try to figure out what America has done to anger you folks so much” approach? Perhaps Obama’s “Let’s join hands and figure this all out” mantra isn’t getting through to these tortured, misunderstood souls.

Maybe Obama needs more teleprompters.

Can someone please turn up the volume of “Peace Train” so everyone can hear it?

From the Daily News:

“They wanted to make a statement,” a law enforcement source said. “They were filled with rage and wanted to take it out on what they considered the source of all problems in America – the Jews.”

The group’s alleged ringleader, James Cromitie, according to the complaint, discussed targets with an undercover agent. “The best target [the World Trade Center] was hit already,” he allegedly told the agent. Later, he rejoiced in a terrorist attack on a synagogue.

“I hate those motherf—–s, those f—ing Jewish bastards. . . . I would like to get [destroy] a synagogue.”
The men allegedly parked car bombs wired to cell phones outside the Riverdale Temple and nearby Riverdale Jewish Center. They were also heading to Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, Orange County, when the law swooped in on them.

Sources said their plan was to shoot down a cargo plane headed to Iraq or Afghanistan with a surface-to-air guided missile while simultaneously calling the cell phones and blowing up the Riverdale synagogues.

Phony C-4 explosives were supplied to the terrorists by undercover agents as well as a fake surface-to-air guided missile system.


From Fox News:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told FOX News that former President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security should be credited for keeping the country safe following the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Maybe the Bush administration might deserve a little credit for the fact that there’s not been another attack on the United States of America since 9-11,” McCain told FOX News.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said if there can be any good news out of this case it’s that “the group was relatively unsophisticated, penetrated early and not connected to any outside group.”

If only George W. Bush hadn’t angered these folks to the point where they clearly had no other recourse but to blow up Jews and shoot down American military planes, these four men might have used their spare time to volunteer at a local rehabilition home or read to the blind.

Kudos to the men and women of law enforcement.

Posted in New York City, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 20, 2009

whack jobFrom the “Just So You Know” file …

There is some chest thumping coming from the President of everyone’s favorite friendly neighborhood buddy-nation. Yesterday, Iran test-fired a “new advanced missile” with a range said to be about 1,200 miles. As the AP reports, that puts “Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East” within its reach.

Said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Defense Minister (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar) has informed me that the Sajjil-2 missile, which has very advanced technology, was launched from Semnan and it landed precisely on the target.” Semnan is 125 miles of Tehran.

AP reporter Ali Akbar Dareini writes:

The announcement will not reassure the U.S. government, coming just two days after President Barack Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against Iran if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama said he expected a positive response to his outreach for opening a dialogue with Iran by the end of the year. 

Of course he does. Ahmadinejad has been nothing short of accommodating and cooperative since he first warmed our hearts with his Holocaust-denial, anti-American rhetoric and calls for Israel’s elimination.

What a guy.

President Obama – who has said he is willing to pow-wow with Iran regardless of what it does or says – is not only delusionaly confident in his fairytale “sit down and tell me what we’ve done to make you angry” foreign policy, but he is sure his TV-star magnetism and personal popularity will be enough to muster international support for sanctions against Iran should it come to that.

His “rock star” status certainly has served him well trying to build up that Afghanistan posse, didn’t it?

Most Western analysts believe Iran does not yet have the technology to produce nuclear weapons, including warheads for long-range missiles. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists said in a report issued Tuesday that Iran could produce a simple nuclear device in one to three years and a nuclear warhead in another five years after that.

The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles “in perhaps six to eight years.”

When the meeting does take place between Bam and Whack Job, I wonder if the President will bow in front of Ahmadinejad or just offer to comb the falafel crumbs from his beard.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 18, 2009

threatened ... overseas

threatened ... overseas

Lord knows I am no fan of Alec Baldwin. His status as a political nimrod is well known among those of us who think. His failure as a radio talkshow host – despite decent pipes – is legendary. His enormous success on the very popular NBC comedy “30 Rock” is undisputed.

To be sure, he’s had his share of negative press, but I am not knee-jerk when it comes to reacting to libs. Indeed, I was among those who thought far too much was made of Baldwin’s now infamous phone message to his 12-year old daughter in 2007 in which he came off as a crazed madman, calling her a “thoughtless pig,” sounding downright demonic.

It should never have been released publicly.

The latest flap surrounding him is so ridiculous that even the standard-bearers of political correctness have to be saying, “Come on. It was a damn joke.”

Baldwin was a guest on David Letterman’s show last week and mentioned that he’d love to have more children. As many know, he and his ex-wife, actress Kim Basinger, have been involved in a very nasty divorce and custody battle. Baldwin, as a joke, said that he was “thinking about getting a Filipino mail-order bride at this point … or a Russian one.”

This has apparently caused quite an uproar in the Philippines.

Apparently, this is a worse insult than saying someone’s mother wears combat boots.

Beacuse of it, Baldwin has actually been threatened with physical violence should he ever set foot in that country.


Actor Alec Baldwin’s joke about getting a Filipino mail-order bride provoked a sharp response in the Philippines, with one senator saying Monday that the “30 Rock” star faces violence if he ever visits..

Philippine Sen. Ramon Revilla said Monday that Baldwin’s comment was “insensitive and uncalled for” and an insult to millions of Filipinos.

He called the actor is “arrogant” and said he is apparently unaware that the Philippines has a law against mail-order brides.

“Let him try to come here in the Philippines and he’ll see mayhem,” Revilla said, using a local idiom that implies the speaker will personally administer a beating.

The senator himself is a former action-movie star who occasionally still appears on Philippine TV.

Class act.

Call it a cultural divide. Call it gross insensitivity on my part. (I am a conservative, after all). Call it a lack of understanding of the heinous societal insult that is the Filipino mail-order bride, but Senator Revilla has got to be kidding … or intoxicated … or reading his copy of “Al Sharpton’s Guide To Victimization, Outrage and Pot Stirring.” Revilla’s undergarments have obviously been twisted to the point of unholy discomfort. 

I’m trying to comprehend this.

A physical threat has been made by a government official beacuse of an innocent line meant as a joke? 

Granted, it may not have been a particularly funny line, but it wasn’t meant as an attack or insult. It wasn’t thoughtless or remotely insensitive. And it certainly didn’t warrant a promise of bodily harm from an elected official, did it?

Because mail-order brides are illegal in the Philippines, Baldwin has now insulted millions of Filipinos?

What if Baldwin instead called Filipino women “ugly” or said he would never consider a Filipino mail-order bride because they are less than desirable? Would Filipino fighter planes be peppering the East Coast of the United States with bombs?

Isn’t it more of a compliment to state publicly that you’d like to have children with someone? Does anyone think Baldwin would like to make babies with a hideous trollop?

Where exactly is the derision?

If Filipino leadership were even one-tenth as impassioned over substantive issues – like combating terrorism, defending liberty or defeating evil, for instance – I might be able to muster a bit more faith in humanity.

Posted in American culture, Political Correctness, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 18, 2009

schumer rides again

In February, 2008, three months after the House of Representatives passed it, the Senate voted 51-45 to confine the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques enumerated in the US Army Field Manual. The bill – authorizing the US intelligence budget for the year 2008 – contained a provision prohibiting the CIA from using waterboarding on terrorist suspects. At the time, New York Senator Charles Schumer had this to say:

If it’s good enough for General Petraeus and FBI Director Robert Mueller, it’s good enough for all of America. If the president vetoes this, he will be voting in favor of waterboarding.

Remember that?

Remember the outrage from Chuck and his leftnick bretheren directed not only toward President Bush but anyone who had the unmitigated, barbaric, uncivilized nerve to defend the use of waterboarding when necessary?

To this day, the American leftocracy is still singing the same tune – no waterboarding.

The bad guys will respect us more if we stop the practice.

I am not among those who believe that waterboarding is torture, but as long as I’m quoting the senior Senator from New York, here’s what he had to say about actual torture just four years earlier:

And I’d like to try and interject a note of balance here … We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room, or in America, who would say that torture should never, ever be used – particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical – if we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city, and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most Senators – maybe all – would say, “Do what you have to do.” So it’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used, but when you’re in the foxhole, it’s a very different deal.”

Here’s the actual audio:

The motif of 2004 – he was for it before he was against it.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 14, 2009

yo joe

yo joe

That Vice President Joe Biden can bend reality into shapes that have yet to be defined – with seemingly no effort whatsoever – is something many of us should watch closely and appreciate. It truly is fascinating to watch. He compels us to pay attention to him – like a car wreck or a streaker. Even the Clintons, at their best, take the place and show positions behind Joe when he’s being Joe.

The Associated Press – no bastion of conservative pom-pom pumpers – is reporting that The Vice President’s assessment of how President Obama’s spendulous package is working isn’t exactly accurate.


Biden released his first quarterly report on the Obamacratic spending extravaganza earlier this week, and rather than compile actual data to formulate an accurate assessment, Joe went selectively anecdotal.

How adorable.

AP’s Matt Apuzzo writes:

It is not disputed that Washington is spending historic amounts of money at a rate far faster than normal. Workers are getting tax breaks, Washington is picking up a greater share of state Medicaid costs and road construction projects are beginning.

Even, the Web site that has yet to live up to its billing as a one-stop way to track every penny, offers more information than typical government programs, and faster.

But the effect of that spending is less clear. Many of the claims the White House is making are based on anecdotes selected to fit the Obama administration’s message. For instance, the report cites a newspaper article about workers being rehired at a factory in Chicago. That account is true, but is no more an accurate snapshot of the nation’s economy than a story, not cited in the report, about a Roanoke, Va., railcar factory closing.

Biden, for instance, claimed that first-time home buyers are “driving increased activity in the home sales market.” More people are being hired in the mortgage industry, according to Biden, because of the first-time home buyers tax credit in the stimulus bill.

On the surface, it sounds promising, of course … but let us not forget that this is Joe Biden. An automatic suspension of reality is in order when he is involved.

The Vice President is getting his information from anecdotes included in a New Orleans business journal, according to Matt Apuzzo. The facts show that not only have home sales gone down since February, the number of jobs in the real estate industry has dipped as well.

Big Joe also claims that employment agencies are putting more people to work since February. Again, he’s tapping into the same New Orleans business journal that supplied him with his first set of “facts.”

Apuzzo writes:

The anecdote may be true, but it’s impossible to extrapolate that any further, even just to New Orleans. The city has lost more than 200 jobs since February. Overall, Louisiana lost 16,085 jobs over the same span, according to the Department of Labor.

And the kicker – the one that employs the most obvious slight of hand (or words) – is something I’ve written about several times since the Obama annointment, namely the claim that jobs are being “saved” by the stimulus package. Specifically, the White House claims that 150,000 jobs have been saved or created since Obama’s craptacular bill became law.

Oh really?


Exactly how does one measure a “saved” job? What are the criteria? Is this born of the same school of thought that says that someone who has been out of work for one day is to be counted among America’s uninsured – even if that worker gets a new job the next day with comprehensive health coverage?

I digress.

Apuzzo writes:

Since February, the nation has lost more than 1.3 million jobs, according to the Department of Labor. To make the case that the country created jobs over that same stretch, the White House has put forward a benchmark of jobs created “or saved.” The argument is that the job numbers would have been even worse had it not been for the stimulus, and the difference between those numbers is a net positive.

Recall the Obama administration’s projected “deficit cuts” over the next several years were actually calculated by first including trillions of dollars of projected war spending into each fiscal year’s budget ahead of time and then “cutting” back on that. That would be akin to my wife and I budgeting for a one million dollar car every year for the next eight years, then cutting it out of the budget and claiming that we are suddenly saving $8 million.

There are few hard numbers when it comes to tracking stimulus jobs. The Obama administration numbers are based on estimates by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, based largely on a formula Obama’s transition team put forward. It estimates the effect of tax breaks, government spending and social programs on job growth.

Spending money will put people to work. But spending has a cost. At some point, Washington will have to pay for this program, either by raising taxes or interest rates, and those policies typically hurt job growth. The Obama administration’s job data do not take into consideration this back-end cost, an omission some economists, particularly conservative economists, say is a flaw in the analysis.

Intellectual honesty from the Associated Press.

Take an “attaboy” out of petty cash.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Joe Biden, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 14, 2009


Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 13, 2009

Eric at the great Vocal Minority website makes an excellent point – one that needs to be made by people on our side who bang their chests about intellectual honesty and integrity.

Indeed, I spend a great deal of time here pointing out and illustrating the incalculable examples of liberal bias that exist in the mainstream media. Like fire ants on Sanibel Island, you cannot swing a dead squirrel without running into left-leaning media bias. I also write about the inherent nastiness and intellectual dishonesty that so often emanates from the Left these days. I assure you, it isn’t a difficult enterprise. Leftists are the arbiters of major league smear-tactics, personal attacks and selective truth telling.

They’re so good at it.

Obviously, I cannot even begin to enumerate such things here as comprehensively as I would like, lest I spend every waking minute rat-a-tat-tatting on my blog while eating up every bit of available bandwidth this side of the Appalachians.

Thus, when someone on the Left actually says something that contains even a smidgen of intellectual honesty, I feel – in the name of my own integrity – that it should be noted, even if doing so throws knots into my descending colon.

As Eric writes:

Pigs are flying outside my window as I write this, but one thing I strive for on this blog, aside from the passionate expression of my views, is intellectual honesty.

So when Keith Olbermann criticizes Wanda Sykes for her Rush Limbaugh comments, I am compelled to acknowledge it.

Granted, Olbermann said Sykes was “99% within the bounds of good taste and within the bounds of the funny.” If that were an actual calculation, Sykes would have had to speak for an additional hour and a half. It was more like 75-80%. But anyway … better than nothing.

Visit Vocal Minority to catch the video link.

With every electron of my being, having to acknowledge anything that Keith Olbermann says with even the tiniest positive spin is as unnatural and detestable to me as eating cocoa puffs in a bowl of soy sauce. I almost feel like I’ve betrayed my country or secretly began watching CNN or something.

Still, Eric is right … and for his intellectual honesty, I applaud him.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 12, 2009

the great wanda sykes

the great wanda sykes

Enough has already been written about the disgraceful appearance by (so-called) comedienne (and militant black lesbian) Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents Dinner over the weekend.

You’ve surely read about what easily qualifies as one of the most embarrassing and pathetic appearances ever at the annual event in which Sykes decided to unleash some of the most inappropriate and malevolent prattle anyone’s ever heard there – as leftists are wont to do when void of any substance (which is almost always).

With that grating, nasal cavity-dredging voice that would have had both the chalkboard and jackhammer grimacing, Sykes broke out the best of her venomous arsenal of unfunny personal attacks on – of all people – Rush Limbaugh.

How original. How cutting-edge.

Because jokes about the September 11th attacks are so damn funny, she quipped that Rush was the 20th hijacker.


Because people with addictions make for such knee-slapping fodder, she worked in some drop-dead hilarious references to Rush’s former troubles with the drug oxycontin.

How does she do it?

And, of course, what stand-up routine in front of the President of the United States would be complete without asking for the death of Mr. Limbaugh by kidney failure?

Nothing but net.

Even the President thought it was funny. He laughed.

Yesterday, however, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went out on a limb and said that the September 11th terrorist attacks are a topic “better left for serious reflection than comedy.”

No wonder this guy is considered the best Press Secretary in the history of the world. No one can put things in perspective like he can.

Of course, the question has yet to be answered – Why was the President of the United States laughing at any of these personal attacks on Limbaugh?

Indeed, the President thought it was a hoot – including Sykes’ follow up line about Limbaugh needing some waterboarding.

(Move over Lucille Ball. There’s a new sheriff in town).

Let’s set aside the obvious. Limbaugh never said he wanted the country to fail, as Sykes alleged in her “routine.” It never came from his lips. No such quote exists. Rather, Limbaugh stated that he wanted Obama’s leftist policies to fail – just as libs wanted the policies of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to fail.

Somehow, this is news – that the opposition party wants policy failure of the party in power.

Let’s also put aside the outpouring of affection and support regularly given to celebrities who battle addictions with recreational drugs. Inspirational stories about their “courage” and “fortitude” fill magazine pages and gossip columns as the celebrity in question navigates the troubled waters of addiction toward the safe harbor of sobriety. However, slap a conservative label on the celebrity and all bets are off. It’s open season. After all, what could be funnier than addiction?

But even more noteworthy than all of that – even more of a head-shaker to me – is something I’ve written about several times since Obama’s inauguration – namely, what seems to be a diminishing sense of dignity and elevation surrounding this White House. It is no secret that President Obama is very much an anti-pomp and circumstance man. He is, in his own words, more laid back and casual than any of his predecessors. Traditions mean far less to him than those who came before him. Thus, with that “there is nothing bigger than me” mentality that leftists regularly embrace, Obama believes everything is all about him and not about the Office of the Presidency – which is infinitely larger than any man who has ever occupied it.

el rushbo

el rushbo

In approaching his Presidency this way, he erodes some of the dignity of the office – and in doing so, entertainers like Wanda Sykes, who have had open contempt for Obama’s stodgy, God-happy, predecessor, now see themselves as more welcome and closer the inner circle of power. They see the President as more like one of them, one of the “regular” people, not tied down by an antiquated, patriarchal set of traditions. Without saying so specifically, the laid-back President sends the signal that it is quite alright for Sykes and her ilk to bring a more gutteral act – something more “real” and unconstrained – to a public function involving the President of the United States. Thus, the undignified diatribe of Wanda Sykes in front of the leader of the free world becomes possible.

Dignity matters. Decorum matters. As talk show host Dennis Prager says, “It adds tremendous substance to life.”

I couldn’t agree more.

But perhaps most astonishing is to observe how much anger still exists on the left. I admit to being astounded at how much nastiness and bitterness still comes from that side.

If you doubt me, here are two words to illustrate my point: Miss California.

The left owns both houses of Congress, the have the White House, they maintain their stranglehold on academia, they run just about every major newspaper in the country, Hollywood is all theirs, most of television media serve as Obama’s personal cheerleading squad, and outgoing liberal Supreme Court justices are fixed to replaced with even more liberal judges.

What in hell do they have to be angry about?

Utopia is no laughing matter, I guess.

Posted in American culture, Liberalism, politics, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 11, 2009

this is the best they could do?

this is the best they could do?

There are times when I find myself so aggravated from being trapped in one of those bumper-to-bumper, standstill, full-gridlock traffic jams that I feel my cranium ready to detonate. This is especially true at times when there traditionally isn’t “supposed” to be that kind of traffic – like, for instance, on a Sunday morning at 10:oo, or at 1:00 on a Tuesday afternoon.

Of course, I live in New York City – the city that never sleeps, complete with pothole-filled highways and byways to match – so there really is no such thing as “supposed to” when it comes to roadway congestion … or anything else, for that matter.

The point is, after sitting in that kind of nerve-frying, scream-inducing highway jam for so long, I not only want to get moving again, I want closure. After having suffered through the inconvenience, indignation and frustration of a major four-lane bottleneck backed up for several miles, I want answers. I want to know precisely what caused all the mess. To be quite frank, I demand to see something up ahead that sufficiently explains why my life has been so disrupted – a stalled vehicle, an overturned tractor trailer, highway construction, lane reduction, something. I obviously don’t want anyone hurt, but I want to see a legitimate reason – anything – that clarifies why I have been stuck on this damn highway for so long.

I’d better see something!

Too many times, however, after a half-hour or more of tedious stop and go crawling (mostly stop), traffic in all lanes will suddenly start to move again. This is obviously a very good thing … but it can be just as infuriating. Often, to my great dismay, at the point where traffic suddenly – inexplicably – loosens up, there will be nothing there to offer even a hint as to why we were all stuck for so long – no fender-bender, no flat tire, no jack-knifed semi … nothing! It just cleared up, seemingly for no reason.

The payoff was a big fat nothing.

All of that fuss for what?

Well, with that spirit in mind, take a good look at the photograph of Air Force One flying over the Statue of Liberty.

Take a good look at it.

Are you impressed?

Remember not too long ago when this low flying aircraft caused a hell of a panic in New York City? Remember when this plane, flanked by a fighter jet, took a leisurely fly over Ground Zero in lower Manhattan causing a genuine scare on the streets of the city, prompting folks into thinking another terrorist attack was underway? Remember this ill-conceived, moronic photo-op that caused New Yorkers to phone 9-1-1 believing that another September 11th style attack was taking place?

The Mayor of New York didn’t even know about it.

All of that for what?

Using the traffic-jam analogy to set the mood, this is the best they could do? That’s it? This is the best photograph they could come up with? After all of that?  All of that fuss for what?

It’s just not that great of a picture. In fact, it’s fairly lousy.

Next time try Photoshop.

Posted in humor, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 10, 2009


Posted in holiday greetings | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 7, 2009


Today is the National Day of Prayer – a day designated annually to be a call to prayer for people of all faiths in the United States. It has existed since 1952, and actually became a fixed day of observance (the first Thursday in May) in 1988 under President Ronald Reagan.

For the past eight years, under President George W. Bush, a public service has been held in the East Room of the White House commemorating the occasion. This year, however, President Barack Obama will do away with the public ceremony – the “pomp and circumstance” of it all – and sign a proclamation (as many other Presidents have done) instead.

It will, thus, be a private matter at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is no surprise, for a variety of reasons – not the least of which is the fact that there is no strategical advantage to it. There are no political points to be scored, power grabs to be made, or photo ops to be had with a public prayer service at the White House.

The larger problem, of course, is that the focus would be on God, not Obama.

Obviously, no one is compelled to pray (please see the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America), but being a country overwhelmingly comprised of people of faith, a national call to prayer is an American tradition, dating back to the Founding. From Thomas Jefferson, who himself attended Christian services held in the chambers of the House of Representatives, to George W. Bush and his East Room National Day of Prayer commemorations, prayer is woven into the American fabric.

The move to downplay the White House’s involvement and participation in the National Day of Prayer is, of course, applauded by some. To others, it doesn’t go far enough.

Predictably, five key words are at the heart of it all: “Separation of Church and State.”

From CNN:

It’s not his job to tell people to pray,” said David Silverman, national spokesperson for the organization American Atheists..

We are very happy he did away with the George W. Bush-era celebrations and party, but we wish he wouldn’t do it at all. … When church and state are separate, separate is separate,” he said.

Try as I might, I simply have not been able to come across the statement, press release, edict, decree, Executive Order, diktat or announcement from President Obama (or any President for that matter) telling people they had to pray. (I probably need to hone by googling skills). Perhaps I need to crack open a copy of the Athiest/English Dictionary, flip to the “Phraseology and Terminology” portion of the text and find the section that explains how “recognizing” faith and “calling” people to prayer is the same as “telling” people to pray.

There are four states, for example, that “recognize” same-sex marriage and “call” on those of us who wish to protect the traditional definition of marriage to deal with it and accept it … but I am not being forced to marry someone of the same-sex.

I actually have four words to throw back at Mr. Silverman – and mine actually appear the Constitution: “… The free exercise thereof.”

The moment Congress passes legislation declaring any one faith as an official state religion, come talk to me. Until then, relax.

No one is going to take away anyone’s Godless little play house if that’s where they want to take their toys.

White House involvement in the National Day of Prayer may be a desirable thing, but it won’t (and shouldn’t) affect things too much.

Despite numerous attempts to get a representative from the executive office to attend, “it doesn’t appear they are going to fulfill our request,” said Becky Armstrong, marketing and media manager of the National Day of Prayer Task Force.

“The White House is a small part of what the national day of prayer is all about… There will be dozens of events held in our nation’s capitol and governors from all 50 states have already issued proclamations recognizing the National Day of Prayer,” Armstrong said.

“It would be belittling to those millions of people to reduce this day to merely one event not being held at the White House.”

Task Force Chairman Shirley Dobson said in a statement that she was disappointed in the “lack of participation” by the Obama administration, adding that “at this time in our country’s history, we would hope our President would recognize more fully the importance of prayer.”

And even if you choose not to pray today, God Bless you anyway.

Posted in First Amendment | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 7, 2009

whip it, baby - larger, older and in the same costumes thirty years later

whip it, baby - larger, older and in the same costumes thirty years later

I am well aware of how much of a waste of oxygen (and broadband) it is to take the time to quote the inanities of insignificant celebrities. I know this to be true because it is very often a waste of vital resources to quote well-known celebrities.

Still, I am enamored with the absurdities that roll off the tongues of people best suited to hacky-sack, political science or go-fish. Musicians (like actors and university students) are particularly susceptible to this affliction of knee-jerk, ad hominem, vapidity of thought. With leftists, the development of an idea or premise often reaches the “sounds good, high-five” stage before dying on the liberal vine.

Enter Gerald Casale – best known as a member of the post-punk, new wave group from the 1970s and 80s, Devo (short for devolution). Many of you will remember Devo’s huge hit from 1980, “Whip It.” Many of you will also remember the video that accompanied the song – geeks with ridiculous looking red hats (energy domes) cracking whips.

Mr. Casale believes that humanity is, indeed, devolving – and he believes one of the clearest examples of its devolution is the existence of talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

From Spinner Magazine Online:

Nobody thinks the idea of devolution is far out anymore,” Casale says. “Just look at the decimation of the air, land and water, and the crisis with the food supply on a global level.”

But to truly illustrate the decline of the three decades since they began, Casale doesn’t need to look further than the TV and radio airwaves — namely, a certain conservative broadcaster. “Rush Limbaugh, to me, is a great example of devolution,” Casale says. “He’s exactly what we were sickened by, the kind of human being we talked about back then. He’s a bad spud.”

A bad spud?

The decimation of the air, land and water?

Food supply crisis?

Let’s see here … pollution levels are as low in the United States as they’ve been in decades. Our rivers and lakes air are remarkably clean – and getting cleaner. Air quality is exponentially better than it was thirty years ago. There is even more forest land in this country than in previous decades. And as far as food shortages go, I thought humanity was already supposed to be out of food by now.

I must be getting my crises mixed up.

I love it when libs try. They’re so cute.

And the idea that a graying, used-to-be-someone, irrelevant, lefty devolutionist would attack Rush Limbaugh is about as shocking as hearing a car horn in Manhattan.

The irony of an aging music star wearing a three-decade old getup consisting of a (let out) yellow jumpsuit and red dome hat talking about “devolution” cannot be overstated.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 6, 2009

the independently liberal David Souter

the independently liberal David Souter

Here’s a shocker … Liberals don’t think of themselves as liberal.

They, in fact, see themselves as straddling the median of the cultural highway. To them, society can be divided into radical right-wingers and reasonable people.

On his Monday radio program – as he regularly does so well – Dennis Prager dissected and analyzed some of the comments made by President Barack Obama regarding the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. As is often the case with the President, his delivery was smooth and eloquent (in that side-to-side teleprompting style of his), but his words were successfully meaningless. Said Mr. Prager: “Every time he gives a speech, you analyze it and it’s painful … but it sounds so good.”

This is the way our Messianic Big Man operates. He makes both leftism and leftists sound so reasonable.

Obama, speaking of Souter, said:

Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda.

Is that right, Mr. President?

David Souter has no ideology? He has no sense of what he believes in?

What is he? An android?

It sounds as if the President is suggesting that to have an ideology means one cannot be fair. By definition, that would, of course, mean that just about all of humanity cannot be fair – with the notable exception of Obama himself, of course, and his trusty Obamacratic underlings.

At last look, the Supreme Court of the United States is comprised exclusively of human beings – unusual creations, to be sure, but predictable in many ways. For instance, they tend to have opinions about things. They tend to “judge” the people and events that comprise the circumstances of their lives. They develop conclusions and assessments based on experiences. That’s how they’re wired.

To suggest that any of the humans that sit on the Supreme Court do not have particular belief systems that directly affect what they do and how they do it is to be at direct odds with reality – not unlike Vice President Joe Biden is with common sense, for example.

The fact is, Souter is a typical liberal, just as Antonin Scalia is a strict constructionist. Justice Clarence Thomas is as much a ‘rightist” as Justice Steven Breyer is a “leftist.” Their value systems play an enormous role in what they do and how they rule. If not, then it wouldn’t matter who was appointed to the bench, would it?

Dennis Prager commented:

What (Obama) means is, I assume, is that they don’t have a political principle or a political agenda.

Of course they do. (Souter) was a left-winger. Justice Scalia is a conservative. Would anybody say that Justice Scalia comes with no pre-existing agenda? That’s absurd. Scalia would say it’s absurd. “This is my philosophy. I’m a constructionist. I ask, ‘What did the Founders mean when they wrote this in the Constitution?’ That’s what I believe.” .

The Left doesn’t ask, “What did they mean?” Their question is, “How can we use it to promote justice and compassion and welfare for the community as we understand it?”

Liberals and Conservatives ask different questions as justices.


Seeing as Souter is free of ideology and agenda – according to Obama – it’d be interesting to find out from the President which justices on the Supreme Court actually do have political agendas.

(Did you know that only conservatives have “political agendas?”)

I invite anyone who truly believes that Justice Souter was somehow agenda-less during his time on the court to stand on his or her head. I also have a couple of suspension bridges in the heart of the city I can unload on you for very cheap.

Obama continued to gush:

He consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task – reaching a just result. 

Prager responded:

Defied political labels? Mr. President, he was not a liberal?

Liberals don’t think that they’re liberal. That’s what’s so fascinating. They think that they’re middle of the road.

In other words, if you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, you’re a right-winger. But if you believe that marriage should be redefined, you’re not a left-winger. If you believe the government should be the only group in business paying health care, you’re not a left-winger. You’re a moderate. The only left-wingers, I guess, were Lenin and Stalin. 

Obama continued:

I will seek someone with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives – whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes.

This is extraordinary and remarkably telling. This statement by the President perfectly epitomizes the leftist’s view on what a judge is charged to do. This quote should be embossed on business cards and passed out to students, pundits, political hacks or anyone who may be unclear on how the modern liberal sees the role of a judge.

Besides the obvious (and predictable) call for someone of an “independent mind,” i.e. a non-conservative, to replace Souter, it is apparently the job description of a judge – according to Bam – to ensure the employment, security, and well-being of the families of the American citizenry.


I must’ve been smoking in the boy’s room that day in US Constitution 101.

I wonder if today’s judges will also remove boils, do algebra, clean out the drainpipes and help change the oil in a struggling businessman’s truck.

As Prager comments:

A judge is supposed to make a decision based on whether a person can take care of his family? That is in direct contradiction to the whole point of a court room. The court room is not the place to work out whether I can feed my family. That is worked out by charitable groups and by the state. It is not worked out by a court.

This is why the Left distorts whatever it enters because it sees everything as a means to an end.

Justice is not an end in a court room.

And it violates the biblical prohibition against favoring the poor in judgment.

I would like to ask the President, “Do you disagree with the Book of Exodus which says, ‘Do not favor the poor man in judgment’?”

Because if the issue is, “How does the does the law impact a person’s ability to feed his family?” do you have to, then, favor the poor in a court room? Which is essentially what he wants to do.

So, the purpose of a Justice is to help people. The purpose of a Justice is not to render justice … But then why have a court room? Why not just change all laws to “help people,” which indeed is what the Left feels it does.

Look for Obama’s appointment to be someone decidely to the left of David Souter. That’s just a guess.

Not that there’s been a pattern or anything.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2009


The term “global warming,” which for a period of time had been unofficially replaced in the American lexicon with the phrase “climate change,” just doesn’t play well with a lot of people anymore. That the world is neither warming (and hasn’t been for several years) nor behaving in any way inconsistent with the cyclical climactic nature of its four billion year life span seems to be irrelevant to those attempting to determine why this is so.

According to John Broder of the New York Times, the term “turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes.” The reality that people may actually be tired of being bombarded day and night with nonsensical threats of a bogus global warming catastrophe doesn’t seem to enter into the minds of the people at EcoAmerica, the “nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm” that conducted a recent poll on the matter.

Rather, it is all in the packaging.

Thus, as liberals are wont to do when evidence, history and facts shatter their contrived calamities and political agendas, they change the label in the hope that the people will buy into the product.

Broder writes:

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. (Robert M.) Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.

Arrogance, thy name is environmentalism.

A question … The fact that “environmental issues” consistently rate near or at the bottom of polls couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that most people understand that the hysteria of impending doom that environmentalists like Al Gore peddle to the masses is pure hogwash, could it?

The idea that most people are not operating in red-alert panic mode over the preposterous claims that the planet is on or near the brink of irreversible devastation absolutely infuriates the greenie-wacko set. The problem, according to EcoAmerica, is that they just haven’t hit upon the right catchphrases, slogans or angles to sell their haggard agenda well enough.

If “global warming, as Mr. Perkowitz suggests, is perceived as a code phrase for “progressive liberals,” who exactly is to blame for that? If today’s environmentalism is associated with “progressive liberalism,” it’s because they are the ones who consistently and repeatedly latch onto crisis after phony crisis, hysteria after hysteria, doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario, with the fate of the planet and humanity hanging in the balance. There isn’t a crisis they won’t promote … or one they have gotten right. From global cooling to overpopulation, from resource depletion to the threat of heterosexual AIDS, from global warming to second-hand smoke, each new challenge is a threat to the very existence of humanity – and ultimately, the earth itself.

They’re batting 1.000.

They’ve been wrong every time.

It makes one wonder what the “perfect” temperature is, or what the “correct” number of people on earth would be, to today’s enviro-warriors.

If “global warming” was anything but political fodder for the Left, why would a name change even be necessary at all? Why would “campaigns” and “strategies” need to be devised to convince people of its very existence? The fact is, years and years of environmentalist screeching about the dangers of human activity and the effect it has on the climate ring less true to more and more people as global temperatures continue to go down – just as they always have after a warming trend. In other words, if the Left (and a few misguided rightists) genuinely believe that the danger facing the planet was clear-cut and irrefutable, why would their agenda need to be prettied up with more favorable focus-group-friendly phraseology?

This isn’t just a matter of finding the right bumper sticker slogan for an unknown product that needs public exposure. Anyone who has been alive and cognizant anywhere in the developed world over the past decade-and-a-half has heard the phrase “global warming” and knows what the phrase implies.

That many have rejected the product  – with many more doing so each day – is proof that clarity of thought is not yet dead – only victims of lefticide.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2009



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