Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for June, 2009


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 30, 2009

Paul Krugman - the anti-traitor

Paul Krugman - the anti-traitor

For those who may have suspected as much – particularly my friends on the left who regularly send me heartfelt e-mails and love notes – I must now confess to something that I have held in hard denial for the duration of my conservative life. The time has come – finally – to throw off the shackles of refutation that have crippled me intellectually and allow some much needed illumination to cut through my self-imposed narrow-mindedness, i.e. conservatism.

With the help of master leftist and hysterically agenda-driven economist (and columnist) Paul Krugman, I can now admit, without reservation, that I possess a treasonous streak.

That’s right, a treasonous streak.

Indeed, I am a traitor to my country – and yes, my planet.

There, I said it.

I am an honest-to-goodness turncoat to Mother Earth – and thanks to Krugman, I am now able to own up to it.

In his New York Times column yesterday, he set the record straight, writing about those who dared to vote against the so-called global warming “Cap-and-Trade” bill in the House – and by extention, all of us who have denied the man-made global warming threat:

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Wow, unforgivable.

Gone are the quaint old days when dissent was deemed patriotic. Washed away into the scrap heap of history are the days when opposing the party in charge was considered a healthy thing.

Welcome to the splendor of the Obamacratic Age, where striding out of lockstep with those in power – those whose goal it is to fundamentally transform the United States into the United Statists – is now considered betrayal.

Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman put the cherry on the cake for me – helping me to come to terms with my treasonous ways – by saying the following about Republicans, global warming deniers and other haters:

“They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They’re rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming.”

It’s absolutely true.

How did they know?

I not only strived for a world where life itself would be threatened on such a grand scale, but I thought it’d be fun to play a little politics on the way to our destruction.

Man, these guys are good.


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 30, 2009

Obama and Manuel Zelaya in April

Obama and Manuel Zelaya in April

As innocents lay murdered in the streets of Tehran at the hands of murderous government thugs, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, chose to be silent on the matter for a week. The leader of the most powerful nation on earth decided to keep quiet while citizens of Iran – denied of even the most basic human rights – were butchered by their government.

The time just wasn’t right.

It just wasn’t his place to meddle, impose, or interject anything that may have potentially upset the despots at the top.

Condemnations mean nothing, his supporters cried. President Obama handled everything just as he should have, the sycophants explained. For Obama to speak out against what was happening in Iran would have served no real purpose, they said.

“Sheer Brilliance!” they exclaimed, drooling all over themselves, thankful for every moment George W. Bush was not calling the shots.

When the President finally addressed the matter, under mounting pressure to emerge from his ice cream cone and do something remotely presidential, he spoke as a man inconvenienced, perhaps perturbed at ostensibly being forced to act as such outside of his comfort zone – away from warm bosom of expanding the debt, nationalizing health care and constructing his legacy.

A man works from sun to sun, but a Messiah’s work is never done.

After a too-little, too-late slice of weakness and afterthought, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, shockingly accused our President of meddling in their affairs.

Who’d have thought?

But President Obama has apparently learned his lesson.

He has decided that silence just isn’t an option anymore when one is the leader of a nation built on fat-catism, bigotry, slavery, corruption and imperialism. Thus, Bam has spoken out – with a kind of strength rarely seen since he asked if he could be allowed to finish his damn waffle on the campaign trail last year – against the coup in Honduras. (I use the word “coup” because it’s the one being used by the press at this time. It’s a debatable point).

In fact, the removal of the dictator, Manuel Zelaya – a man enthusiastically supported by Venezuelan leader and all-around fun-loving hooligan, Hugo Chavez – has prompted the President to denounce the coup as illegal.

Arshad Mohammed and David Alexander from Reuters write:

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a “terrible precedent” of transition by military force unless it was reversed.

“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.

The Honduran Congress named an interim president, Roberto Micheletti, and the country’s Supreme Court said it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya.

The European Union and a string of foreign governments have voiced support for Zelaya, who was snatched by troops from his residence and whisked away by plane to Costa Rica in his pajamas.

Obama said he would work with the Organization of American States and other international institutions to restore Zelaya to power and “see if we can resolve this in a peaceful way.”

Thus, the President – quicker than a fly on a picnic spare rib – opened his mouth and unequivocally condemned the action, siding with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Chavez, of course, has accused the United States of having some sort of hand in the Honduras “coup.”

Perhaps Chavez isn’t quite as savvy as many take him for – or maybe he has just grown accustomed to having an American right-wing, war-thirsty imperialist like George W. Bush at the helm.

Chavez will soon understand that President Obama is a bonafide, card-carrying leftist.

Silly Hugo.

The idea that Obama would have anything to do with toppling any of the left-heavy governments of Latin America is almost as preposterous as expecting anything other than an apology from Obama for America’s mere existence, which understandably led Chavez to come to such a conclusion.

Said Chavez: “They will have to get to the bottom of how much of a hand the CIA and other imperial bodies had in this.”

I can almost hear Obama saying, “Damn, that guy is good. Someone get the CIA on the horn!”


Update – June 30, 2009 12:26 PM

Talk show host Dennis Prager makes a very important point on his radio program today – and helps support my inclination that what happened in Hondouras really wasn’t a coup.

Zelaya was removed from power by decree of his nation’s Supreme Court for Constitutional violations. He was replaced by a member of his own party – hardly what one would consider a coup.

The military did not take over the country.

Thank goodness Obama had the gumption to declare something that actually was legal an illegal act.

Such courage.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 29, 2009

*Jun 28 - 00:05*

Yesterday, in Manhattan, hundreds of thousands of people jammed Fifth Avenue from Midtown to Greenwich Village to celebrate and commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the birth of the modern gay rights movement – the Stonewall riots of September, 1969.

There were floats, bands, politicians, drag queens, rainbow colored flags, green signs that read “Equal Rights” and the words “Gay Pride” plastered just about everywhere. People were clad in everything from “normal” everyday summertime attire to more “inventive” outfits – some of which looked like the result of a Crayola truck that might have went one round too many with an atomic bomb. There were cries of equality for all, demands that same-sex marriage be legalized and that oppression and close-mindedness be eradicated. It was an important day for much of the “gay community,” and by all accounts, an enormously successul and exciting afternoon.

All the right faces were there – from New York Governor David Paterson to City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (openly gay). All the necessary photo ops were made, and all the right sound bites were distributed to the right news outlets.

I can already see the eyebrows crunching and the lips curling from some of you out there. Some of you are reflexively tightening your hands into fists of rage in anticipation of some sort of  “gay hit piece” on my part. Ever since my series of articles called I Don’t Hate Gays, Okay? from December of last year, I have officially been given card-carrying access to the Homophobe Club.

Please allow me to be clear … I don’t disparage anyone who was there for participating in the festivities, voicing their opinions, and standing up for what they believe in.

God bless them all – and I sincerely mean that.

I am, however, fascinated by the motivations of those who marched in yesterday’s parade – the same way I am enticed with some of the more vocal proponents of same-sex marriage. As I have written about many times in the past, I am strongly opposed to redefining the definition of marriage, but I certainly don’t hate gays (believe it or not). I want the same successes, good fortune, happiness and liberties extended to homosexuals that are afforded to heterosexuals. We are all Americans. We are all God’s children.

Most interesting to me were the calls for “equal rights” from the marchers and sign wavers. Equally intriguing was the theme of “gay pride” so much in abundance in yesterday’s celebrations.

First of all, if there are rights that are being denied to homosexuals in this country – specifically enumerated rights – I’d be very interested in knowing what they are. Despite the whiny jabber of those who instinctively cry “opression” at the drop of a hat, I know of no civil liberties or constitutional rights being denied to homoesexuals in the United States of America.

Of course, the reflexive response is that gays are being denied the “right” to marry.

But the premise is fallacious.

Where exactly is this “right” to be married expressed? What document or decree secures such a right? Marriage – like it or not – is not a right extended to individuals by a government. Rather, it is a union of one man and one woman recognized and endorsed by government. It is so because society’s very existence hinges on men and women procreating.

It’s really no more difficult than that.

Otherwise, the state is uninterested in relationships, shack-ups, one-night stands, hook-ups and all other non-traditional unions – as it should be. Marriage is a privilege defined by very specific guidelines. Marriage laws have been shaped and defined over time through the course of many centuries. Thus, marriage can be thought of as being a restriction of rights – especially when it comes to income and property.

It simply isn’t an “equal rights” issue.

Second, there’s the matter of pride.

Here were hundreds of thousands of human beings – legally exercising their rights to free speech and assembly – who were publicly taking pride not in their accomplishments or deeds (nor even in heritage or ancestry) but rather, with whom they choose to have sex. It was effectively an enormous congratulatory confluence of people proclaiming their dignity and worth based on their choice of sex partner(s), demanding that what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms be accepted by the public at large.

I find this to be a tremendously sad reality.

When pride is based on anything other than achievment and the worth of someone’s deeds, and is instead built on skin color and with whom one sleeps, it is very often shallow.

Homosexuality is not illegal, nor is anyone advocating that it should be. I don’t know of anyone on my side of the aisle who really cares what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms.

However, that doesn’t mean that I – or anyone else – need to approve of or accept anything being advocated by anyone who decides to share the intimate details of his or her life with the world.

rainbow gay flagIsn’t it interesting that the same folks who say that what goes on between consenting adults behind closed bedroom doors is no one else’s business but their own – which I agree with wholeheartedly – expect the rest of the world to place their stamp of approval on the same behavior?

Thus, it isn’t just the so-called “equal right” to same-sex marriage that many gays believe exists, it is the “equal right” to have – nay, demand – someone else’s approval.

Isn’t this actually the converse of “equal rights?”

As I once asked, which color of the rainbow in that “gay pride” flag represents the percentage of Americans who believe in traditional values?

Just curious.

Posted in American culture, Gay issues, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 26, 2009

smoking is rude in NYCMandating what cooking oils privately owned restaurants can use wasn’t enough.

Telling club, restaurant and bar owners that they could no longer allow smoking in their own establishments was only the beginning.

Indeed, the war on salt is already underway.

As the relentless march toward transforming matters of health into issues of morality continues – and the death toll of children and teenagers who have died due to smoking and second-hand smoke continues to be zero – the City of New York is now contemplating the possibility of further augmenting its interference in the free market system. Now, the Big Hands of the Big Apple are ready to tighten their grip around the throats of free enterprise just a little more by considering a new measure of soft tyranny (all meant for our own good, of course) – namely targeting 12,000 cigarette retailers in the city by requiring them to post anti-smoking signs on their own property.

Never has something so legal been so demonized.

WCBS-TV in New York reports:

The New York City health department is moving forward with a plan that would require about 12,000 cigarette retailers to post large anti-smoking signs.

It’s billed as the first such regulation in the United States.

The eye-level signs would have information about the harmful effects of smoking, possibly with an image.

The assistant commissioner for tobacco control, Sarah B. Perl, says it can be effective to display gruesome health effects such as amputations and throat cancer.

The Assistant Commissioner for Tobacco Control?

Oh, Lord.

Is there a Deputy to the Assistant for Tobacco Control too?

I would be willing to wager that Sarah B. Perl probably isn’t too keen about the idea of posting eye-level “before” and “after” pictures of aborted fetuses at abortion clinics – something that would almost certainly be “effective” in significantly cutting back the number of abortions in this country, as many liberals claim they’d like to see.  It seems almost contradictory, seeing as so many liberals label the right to carry out an abortion as a “health care” issue.


Can New Yorkers soon expect to see pictures of mangled bodies twisted beyond recognition in horrific alcohol-induced car wrecks, or images of spouses and children horribly abused by alcoholic family members, at “eye-level” positions in liquor stores across the city?

Uncle Sam says NO SMOKINGAre pictures of diseased arteries, obese people woofing down french fries, overweight cadavers and cellulite-laden “cottage cheese” legs going to find their way to “eye-level” locations outside of Burger King and McDonalds’ restaurants in the five boroughs?

How about snapshots of people with syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes in front of free condom distribution centers in schools and free clinics?

It’s a good thing liberals never impose their values on people.

Don’t misunderstand me … I don’t condone cigarette smoking.

I am not on the payroll of any tobacco company, nor do I get free samplers from the cigarette manufacturers.

I do, however, condone liberty – the freedom to make choices. Having the government inform people about the hazards of a perfectly legal activity is one thing. Stripping liberties from its citizenry is another.

It’s what liberals do.

Indeed, liberals are funny creatures … but when in power, they can be frightening creatures.

The unwillingness to accept and acknowledge human nature is a liberal shortcoming – from the inability to avow the categorically inherent differences that exist between the sexes to being able to label evil. One of the more disparraging qualities in the human animal that liberals tend to gloss over  – and put on display – is the inability to know when to stop if left unchecked.

We see it Washington, D.C. when fly-by-night, who-did-it-and-ran Democrat legislation is rushed through Congress without debate, balance or the ability to actually read what’s being passed into law, i.e. the Messianic Stimulus Bill and Pelosi’s Cap And Trade disaster.

Here in New York City, Republicans on the City Council are as common as Jackie Mason albums in the Gaza Strip. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already spit upon the will of the people of his city by usurping term limits.

Unchecked power, indeed.

The fact remains that there is no child or teenager that has ever died because of cigarette smoking, nor has there been one killed by second, third or twelfth-hand smoke.

Liberty itself is far more fragile than a teenager’s lung.

Posted in American culture, Liberalism, New York City, smoking | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 26, 2009

senator john kerry

Not that his cardboard, less-interesting-than-yogurt personality wasn’t enough. Not that his military service – which he made a point of reminding us about every time that dying-doorbell voice of his made any noise – wasn’t sufficient. Not that his banana-faced good looks and chiseled haircut weren’t the bees knees. All along, it was his sense of humor – his vastly underrated and tragically unheralded rapier-like wit – that kept America enchanted and mesmerized by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.

Look out Mark Twain and Will Rogers.

There’s a new quipster in town.

Who knew?

Although, never one to be taken with regret, I can say with all sincerity that the real tragedy is that John Kerry just couldn’t cheat as well as George W. Bush did to secure the 2004 election.

Ah, what might have been …

The Boston Herald’s Rachelle Cohen says the knee-slappin’ senator – that rascal, that rapscallion – is at it again.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry must have been channeling his inner Letterman yesterday.

The Bay State senator was telling a group of business and civic leaders in town at his invitation about the “bizarre’’ tale of how South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford had “disappeared for four days’’ and claimed to be hiking along the Appalachian Trail, but no one was really certain of his whereabouts.

“Too bad,’’ Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.’’

Now that’s comedy. I’m still trying to catch my breath. Talk about cutting edge.

Perhaps Senator Kerry has been listening to the comedy stylings of Wanda Sykes, who thought it was funny to call for the death of Rush Limbaugh last month at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

(Recall President Obama laughed at that one).

I can’t help but wonder what’s next for the lanky Bay State Senator. Where does he go from here?

Maybe something like:

-“If a well known woman had to die of cancer, why couldn’t it have been Sarah Palin instead of Farrah Fawcet?”

-“If a well known celebrity had to die of a heart attack, why couldn’t it have been Sarah Palin instead of Michael Jackson?”

Kerry is certainly good enough to pull something like that off, isn’t he?

If there are two things in this world you just can’t stand in the way of it’s a runaway twenty-eight ton tractor trailer and burgeoning comedic genius.

The reports that Kerry was originally considered for the role of Kramer on Seinfeld must be true.

The guy is a pistol.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 26, 2009

The poster that launched a billion fantasies

The poster that launched a billion fantasies

Yes, I know.

Just about every blog from here to the Columbia River country has this image posted today. Certainly, there’s nothing particularly insightful, original, ground-breaking or unique in simply posting this iconic picture and jotting down some quick assembly-line words of tribute – like I am doing here. I have no stories to tell about her, no “dirt” to dish out, no heartfelt synopses to convey, no juicy morsels of gossipy blather to share.

Boring, I know.

Indeed, this legendary image of her says nothing about the type of person she was. It doesn’t reveal anything about her character or strength. It is simply a snapshot in time – a very well known snapshot in time.

She was obviously far more than a sexy young gal in a bathing suit who once upon a time triggered the collective hormones of just about every red-blooded male over the age of 12.

She was loved by many, and those who were close to her are now dealing with the pain of her loss.

I just wanted to take a moment, for what it’s worth, to say thanks to Farrah Fawcet for making my adolescence just a touch more enjoyable. Millions and millions of us who were growing boys back then will never forget this image, nor forget her.

Rest in peace, Farrah Fawcet.

You will be missed.

God bless you.

Posted in Pop Culture | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2009

Obama Appeasement UniversityIt isn’t often that an opportunity as golden as this presents itself so readily. The only question is whether or not President Barack Obama will step up to the plate and seize the moment. Sure, Bam is sufficiently well-versed in apologizing for his own country on foreign soil, but he hasn’t done it so much from home – certainly to the shagrin of the Blame America First contingency of a Bam-A-Lang-A-Ding-Dong Brigade. And seeing as he probably isn’t inclined to spontaneously hop on his big old jet and fly to some country with a horrible human rights record to grovel and express his shame of America (unless the teleprompter advises him to do so), chances are quite good that the world might be treated to a good old fashioned slice of humble pie – or waffle – from deep within the friendly confines of the U.S.A.

It’s sure to soften the hearts of our murderous enemies everywhere.

The Politico is reporting that the recent winner of the Iranian elections, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, isn’t happy with our President. He’s even going so far as to compare Obama to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Short of drilling machine screws into Obama’s toe nails, is there anything Ahmadinejad could have done that would have been worse?

Talk about brutality.

From the Politico:

Reacting to Obama’s comment Tuesday that he is “appalled and outraged” by crackdowns in Iran, Ahmadinejad said, “Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say.”

“Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about… I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it,” he added, according to Reuters.

And from the screeching throats of liberals all across the star-spangled map will come the admonitions that the President should have said nothing – that a statement of condemnation from the White House was nothing more than an ill-advised bone thrown to the war-mongering American right-wing.

See what happens when you appease the God-happy, gun-toting, Dick Cheney lap dogs?

You piss off Ahmadinejad.

How dare Obama agitate the Iranian whack-job when everything was just starting to get better, and world peace was just around the bend.

Bam had better find out what Ahmedinejad’s favorite movies are.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2009

work harder

Posted in Picture of the Day | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 24, 2009

Chinese Theater

Democrats, liberals, social activists and other utopia-seekers need to prepare their exit strategies a little better. Whether following a successful and noble struggle (like the civil rights battles that culminated in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), or a dreadfully unsuccessful one (the so-called War on Poverty that has cost trillions of dollars and has accomplished absolutely nothing), the first and foremost question to be answered is “What happens next?”

Liberals don’t have answers, of course.

They lather, rinse and repeat, with the emphasis on repeat – even though the shampoo is lousy and smells something like Spam.

People like the Reverend Al Sharpton, for example, continue to fuel decades-old skirmishes in a war that has long since been won, simply to hold on to fleeting relevance. Despite the fact that today’s America – the most accommodating, least-racist nation on the planet – is light years from resembling the troubled nation that more than five decades ago began confronting its social demons in earnest means little to the race-obsessed of today. If we – both non-intimidated white Americans and post-racial blacks who are sick and tired of being told that their skin color is their most relevant characteristic – can be reminded by the loudest and most bombastic among us how horrible we still are, then any and all progress in race relations can continue to be labeled as “not good enough.”

It gives them meaning and purpose at the expense of genuine progress.

The soldiers of social change from days gone by are simply not as relevant as they once were – and that is, by definition, a good thing. Those principals and values for which they fought valiantly and heroically for – character over color, equality of opportunity for all – are timeless. But the victory has long since been secured. They have succeeded, thank God. Their irrelevance today is a testament to the social changes they battled for back then.

Thus, I humbly suggest that what is best for this country is for these relics acknowledge the important victories of the past and cease continuing to wage meaningless and counterproductive wars.

This bit of unsolicited advice is respectfully directed to NFL football legend Jim Brown.

Neil Best from writes:

Football Hall of Famer Jim Brown blasts Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods for their lack of social activism in an interview that is to appear on HBO’s “Real Sports” Tuesday night.

Of Woods, Brown said, “This cat is a mamajama; he is a killer. He’ll run over you, he’ll kick your ass. But as an individual for social change or any of that kind of — , terrible. Terrible.”

Brown criticized Woods in January 2008 for not speaking out against the Golf Channel’s Kelly Tilghman after she used the word “lynch” in a joking reference to him.

Of Woods and Jordan, Brown said, “I know they both know better, OK? And I know they both can do better without hurting themselves.”


Exactly what sort of social change should Woods and Jordan be engineering, according to Brown? What is it they are neglecting to do for their race?

mike and tigerIn his day, in the not so distant past, there was no athlete in any sport more revered or admired as Michael Jordan. Today, Tiger Woods is an icon, a living legend, at the very top of his field, probably on his way to being the greatest golfer who has ever lived (if he isn’t already). Both men conduct themselves admirably and are the idols of tens of millions. Their followings transcend every conceivable category of society. They are loved by people from every walk of life from every corner of the country. America has afforded them the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and they have succeeded as men – not just black men (precisely the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King). Neither man has ever been denied a hotel room, or the ability to sit at a lunch counter, or use a water faucet because of their skin color. This is twenty-first century America. Their skin color is positively meaningless. Their achievements are what matters – just as Dr. King had wished.

This has always perplexed me.

If the goal was to have a society that was, for all intents and purposes, color blind, how can someone criticize others who are actually following through and reaping the benefits of the hard fought battles of the past?

I would never suggest that anyone forget the injustices of history, but wouldn’t liberals do better for themselves to actually behave as genuine progressives and look ahead?

To help illustrate my point, think of a busy four-way intersection somewhere without a working stop light and only a stop sign on two of the four corners. Picture how nightmarish the traffic at such an intersection would be, particularly during rush hour. The amount of fender benders and injuries at such an intersection would be unacceptable.

Now imagine a group of people in the community actively working to put genuine stop lights in place, complete with turning lanes and crosswalks. They petition their local government, they hold rallies, they print up literature, they go from door to door building support for their cause. Eventually, the stop lights are put in, the intersection is made exponentially safer and all goals are met.


Those who lived through the pre-stop light era will always remember how it was. They may even tell stories of how dangerous things used to be at that crazy intersection and how different life was during that time. The good that was done by the people who fought the battle to put in that stop light will never be forgotten – nor should it be.

But the need to keep fighting the original battle to put in that stop light just wouldn’t exist anymore.

Naturally, the presence of a stop light will not keep individual drivers from being careless – the same way one will never be able to completely eradicate racism from the country. But the existence of careless drivers does not mean the intersection is unsafe.

To time to fight the battle of the stoplight has come and gone.

And just because there are racists in America does not mean we are a racist nation.

We are not.

There are deaf people in America. Are we a deaf nation?

There are paraplegics in America. Are we a paraplegic nation?

For my money, I happen to think Jim Brown is the greatest running back in the history of the NFL (with all due respect to Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders). He is the only man to average 100 yards a game for every game he ever played – an astonishing accomplishment (Barry Sanders is damn close, though). The era he played in during his prime years is a far different place than the one Michael Jordan did or the one Tiger Woods currently plays in – attributable to those who fought the battles for social justice “back in the day.”

Those who did should be admired.

Sadly, those who still do are an often an embarrassment to that legacy.

Posted in Liberalism, Pop Culture, Racism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 23, 2009

..and still champion

..and still champion

That sound you heard was not your air mattress springing a leak. It was me letting out a much-needed sigh of relief. I can finally lay down my weary head and begin focusing on other matters thanks to the Iranian Guardian Council, who today put to rest any doubts regarding the integrity of the recent elections there.

The country’s top electoral body said that “no major fraud or breech” was found to exist in the way the election was conducted.

Thus, there will be no new vote. The results will stand.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is winner.

Hard to believe, I know.

(Water is also wet).

Meanwhile, the government in Iran is issuing harsher warnings to the annoying protestors who just don’t know when to leave well enough alone.

Karin Laub of the Associated Press writes:

Ebrahim Raisi, a top judicial official, confirmed Tuesday that a special court has been set up to deal with detained protesters. “Elements of riots must be dealt with to set an example. The judiciary will do that,” he was quoted as saying by the state-run radio. The judiciary is controlled by Iran’s ruling clerics.

In recent days, Iran’s supreme leader has ordered demonstrators off the streets and the feared Revolutionary Guards has threatened a tough crackdown. At least 17 people have been killed in near-daily demonstrations, including at least one that drew hundreds of thousands.

Plans to move forward with Obamacrat diplomacy will almost certainly be delayed until the remaining protestors have the good sense to sit their asses back down and do what they’re told.

The President ought to be finished with his waffle by then.

(He plays second fiddle to no one).

Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports suggest that preparations are underway at the White House for a new set of sensitivity training courses.

          -“Terrorists Are People, Too.”

          -“Always Blame Thyself.”

          -“Our Founding Fathers Are No Better Than Their Founding Fathers.”

The classes are voluntary, but those choosing not to attend will be terminated immediately.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 23, 2009

obama our confused president

As an “add-on” to the piece I posted on Sunday called “Bam Acknowledges the Iranian Upheaval,” I wanted to tip my hat to talk show host Mark Levin who made a very interesting point on his radio program Monday evening – something I wish I would have made myself in the article.

When it was originally reported that the election results in Iran were very close, and that the very real possibility existed that the opposition (Mir-Hossein Mousavi) could pull out a victory over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Barack Obama wasted no time in giving himself a pat on the back and a hearty attaboy, crediting – at least in part – his now much-hearalded (and thoroughly vacuous) speech in Cairo, Egypt as a catalyst for the start of a “new dialogue” in that country.

That he did so came as no surprise, of course.

Indeed, it fit in quite famously with his modus operandi – that is, everything that Obama says and does is all about Obama. Everything else – if it cannot be shaped, molded, redefined and beat into political submission – is irrelevant.

Mark Levin – The Great One – points out how Obamacrats had no problem devouring bromide after bromide from Bam’s Big Box-O-Platitudes, calling his empty speech in Cairo the fuel behind what was seen at first as a potentially historic election.

Even now, some credit Bam’s Cairo teleprompter read as the spark and inspiration behind the courage summoned by the people of Iran to rise up in protest against their government when the election results took a curiously decisive and comfortable turn toward an Ahmadinejad victory.

Levin notes how looking toward Cairo as some sort of catalyst for the events in Iran is nothing more than sycophant media-hype, Obama-spun fantasy-world nonsense, and liberal wishful thinking. Rather, one needs to look toward the successes in Iraq – and the policies implemented by the Bush administration – as a more reasonable explanation as to why the events in Iran have unfolded as they have.

He’s absolutely right.

No one – absolutely no one – in the mainstream media (and God forbid, the administration) would ever dream of attributing the turnaround in Iraq as having any sort of influence on the extraordinary happenings over the past week in Iran. It can only be Obama, savior to the world, foil to the xenophopic notion of American exceptionalism, with his delightfully naive perceptions of the world and his unwillingness to confront and label evil, that could actually move the people of Iran to rise up and fight for their basic human rights. The slow and steady push toward democracy in the once despotic nation of Iraq could not possibly have anything to do with the upheaval in neighboring Iran, according to leftists.

After all, to a liberal, crediting George W. Bush for anything outside of slaughtering innocents and war crimes is worse than a dozen ice picks to the eye or mentioning God in public.

Indeed, in my piece on Sunday, I was very critical of the President’s handling of the situation in Iran – how unreliable, weak and embarrassing it makes the United States look. 

On his radio program on Monday, Mark Levin helped to illustrate my point – although he certainly doesn’t know me from Adam. (All I can say, as an admirer of his, is “thank you, Great One.”)

Please take a moment to compare and contrast how President Ronald Reagan, in December, 1981, spoke out against the government-led violence in Poland to President Barack Obama’s words almost 28 years later.


reagan picAs I speak to you tonight, the fate of a proud and ancient nation hangs in the balance. For a thousand years, Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government.

The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.

The Polish Government has trampled underfoot solemn commitments to the UN Charter and the Helsinki accords. It has even broken the Gdansk agreement of. August 1980, by which the Polish Government recognized the basic right of its people to form free trade unions and to strike.

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct “business as usual” with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.


obamaThe last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the — Iranian people are seeking to — let their voices be heard. 

Now, what we can do is bear witness and say — to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we’ve seen is a testimony to — I think what Dr. King called the — the arc of the moral universe. It’s long but it bends towards justice.

Such strength.

How exactly can one accurately measure the moral arc of the universe when one cannot – or is unwilling to – first take a stand against that which is immoral?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 21, 2009

iranian protestor beatenIt’s being called a change in approach.

Allow me a moment or two to set this straight in my mind.

He was against imposing values before he was for it, even though he was adamant about imposing at least some ideas before he said he was in favor of staying out of things altogether. All of this, of course, came before he finally crawled out from behind his ice cream cone to say something about the violence and upheaval in Iran, despite his inclination not to perturb the murderers and thugs of the world, or throw a monkey wrench into his policy of appeasement and paddy cake.

If ever there was a leader with less of a clue about foreign policy than President Barack Obama – without having to backtrack all the way to Neville Chamberlain – it isn’t readily apparent.

Willing to throw the nation of Israel (one of our closest allies) under the bus, making demands of them, i.e. imposing values, while attempting to make nice-nice with those who would think nothing of slitting the throats of his own children is frustrating enough. Having his Secretary of State say that if North Korea doesn’t watch out, the United States may put them back on a “bad guy’s list” of terrorist nations is, indeed, embarrassing. But to come to the conclusion that it was strategically (and politically) expedient to say nothing and play “neutral” towards the horrendous acts of brutality being perpetrated by the Iranian government on its citizenry in the streets of that country until now – when it was clear that the heat of the political winds were calling him to do so – is downright bad leadership.

It was up to the President of the United States to take an open and unequivocal stand, without mincing words and without concern for his image, against the violence and cruelty taking place in Iran right away. It was up to the leader of the free world to say “to hell with worrying about how sour my relationship with Iran might get if I say something,” and act like a President – someone who gives a damn about something other than his popularity and legacy. It was time to show resolve by pulling a page from the Reagan and Thatcher handbook and engage Iran directly with immediate condemnations.

One would think that the images and reports of innocents being slaughtered in the streets by a despotic government ought to raise the ire of a man so shaped and influenced by the graduates of the protest culture. One would assume that the fist-pimping, community-organizing, radical leftist that burns deep within the President would summon the spirits that moved his mentors to work to overthrow the “tyranny” of the United States back in the day and at least act like the violence in Iran matters to him.

Maybe the President left his outrage at customs counter in Egypt.

It’s absolutely stunning.

On one hand, without an inkling of hesitation, the President is willing to publicly announce battle strategies while still at war, overhaul and socialize the greatest health care system the world has ever known, grow the national debt to unsustainable levels, apologize for the actions of his own country overseas, demand that Israel roll over yet again for those who want to see her destroyed, and generally blame everything that is wrong with the world on the previous administration. Yet, on the other hand, as the innocent in Iran are butchered by the government in some of the most remarkable and shocking pictures many have seen in a long time, Obama decides that the best thing to do is take a “wait and see” approach … until now, that is. He has realized, to his great dismay, that the whole Iranian “upheaval thing” isn’t just going to fade into news archives and back pages.

He actually had to say something about it.

And so he did.

He has called on Iran to “stop all the violent and unjust actions” … and only a week or so late!

(That sound you hear are members of The Guardian Council shaking in their shoes).

Said the President:

obama and iranThe Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

The words themselves are fine, but its impact – a week overdue and seemingly forced –  has the effect of a paraplegic threatening to kick the ass of a professional wrestler.

Remember, the United States is to lead by example, according to the President.

Another speech or two in Cairo ought to crack that nut.

Naturally, saliva gushing Obamacrats have hailed the President’s silence and sudden change in course as brilliant strategy.

A blogger called Anna at Ben Smith’s blog at the Politico website echoes the sentiments of many Obamacrats, writing:

Had (Obama) come out in support of the idea that the election had been rigged, he’d have given the ruling elites a lot of ammunition: the great Satan is trying to influence Iranian affairs again, beware the Westerners, etc. But this way, he’s only saying things that are incontestable: free speech must be protected and governments cannot kill citizens with impunity.

This is yet another brazen example of why liberals – while quite good at making music and designing websites – cannot be trusted with matters of national security.

Blame America first.

To Anna, and other leftocrats, it is the United States that would have exaserbated the situation in Iran by openly and swiftly castigating the actions of the government there. It is America that would have fuelled anger in Iranian’s ruling elites had Obama said anything deemed disparaging and critical (because Lord knows the Ayatollah Khamenei and friends were all waving their American flags and looking toward us for moral guidance right up until the Iranian elections). In other words – in Anna’s world – if Obama can keep quiet in the wake of some of the ugliest violence against innocents seen in quite a while, America won’t be as great a Satan as it most certainly would have been otherwise.

Beacuse, after all, it matters what Iran thinks of us.

Of course, I’m wondering what Obama will do if the Iranian government flat-out refuses to be led by American example?

What if the Iranian government dosen’t stop all the “violent and just actions against its own people?”

Will Obama break out the “whooping stick” and put them on a new list?

Or maybe (dare I say it) threaten them with some United Nations fist pumping?

Can sanctions be right around the corner?

Another poster at Smith’s blog at Politico makes this important point:

Obama seems to forget that “universal rights to free speech” aren’t guaranteed in Islamic society. The protesters have no right to be doing what they are doing and they will be cleared from the streets and punished by Islamic law.


Liberals routinely speak of how close-mined, non-nuanced, and “black and white” conservatives are. It’s as interesting a theory as it is false because it requires no thought. Liberals are overwhelmingly the ones who see things in “black and white.” There are no “shades of grey” in the lefty rainbow.

For example, to be against same-sex marriage is to be a homophobe. In the mind of a liberal, there’s simply no chance that a conservative may simply wish to keep the definition of marriage as it has always been and still not hate gays.

To liberals, the war against islamo-Facism (if they even consider it a war anymore) is all about Osama Bin Ladin … and that’s it. That there are a multitude of terrorist groups with the same objectives as Al Qaeda is irrelevant to them.

Only platitudes (and probably warfare itself) carry any weight with liberals. For Obama to implacably condemn what the Iranian government has been doing to its own people, would have been a waste of time, according to libs. Iran wouldn’t be influenced or compelled to change their ways based on a Presidential condemnation, they’d explain. For Obama to demand a stop to the violence would have been pointless, they’d argue – and it’d be meddling in other people’s affairs. Conservatives are fooling themselves to think it really matters if the President of the United States stands up for so-called “freedom” and “democracy.”

Who are we to demand anything?

What right we do we have?

(Perhaps Israel is asking the same question of Obama who has demanded that Israel remove settlements from the “occupied territories.”)

Keep in mind that these criticisms of conservatives come from the people who lap up and suck on Obama’s empty bumper-sticker platitudes like a liberal on a working man’s paycheck. Recall how they cried, sighed and shuddered at the “brilliance” of his poster-board, slogan-happy rhetoric when he spoke in Cairo. Remember how they fawned and fainted when he gabbed in Germany, speaking in flowery, pointless, uncourageous, cleverly crafted news-bite fodder (proven even more hollow by his week of “neutrality”).

appeasementObama regularly uses words like “peace” and “unity” and liberals wet themselves. Yet, when the bell rings, and the time comes to actually stand up and defend those principals that foster basic human rights, Obama shuts up. He knows liberty is offensive to some people.

But that is precisely what the President of the United States should have been doing from the moment it became apparent what was happening in Iran – boldly speaking out against the government-led violence, condemning the actions of the Iranian government, sending a crucial message that America not only supports those who fight for the basic human rights, but is never afraid to say so.

Liberals, of course, find no importance in doing this, unless no one is offended in the process – that is, except American conservatives. Being openly critical of the Iranian government would have gotten a whole bunch of Mullah panties in a twist, and that just couldn’t be allowed to happen.

The fact is, while liberals continue to applaud what they see as a brilliantly tempered strategy on the part of Barack Obama to “stay out of it,” those of us who actually are cognizant of the real world understand that such “neutrality” makes America look weak and disinterested … and our enemies know it.

America cannot be disinterested and neutral when such obvious examples of brutality are on display for the world to see.

Yes, this President is a veritable platitude-machine, careful not to offend anyone, speaking in vague generalities, throwing out meaningless phrases like “working together,” “common ground” and “striving toward peace,” all the while never exuding the courage to define and condemn that which is evil – unless you consider corporate profits and being without health care insurance evil.

That is a huge problem.

When the President of the United States cannot denounce the likes of the Iranian government, it is bad for the world.

Sure, it was a nice touch for Obama to quote Martin Luther King Jr. in his comments, but I doubt there are too many of the Iranian elite doing a double-take saying, “Damn, he’s right, you know.”

We’d be the Great Satan no matter how many times we puckered up to kiss their backsides.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 21, 2009

happy father's day

Posted in holiday greetings | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 18, 2009


It must be celebration time at the National Organization For Women, not to mention Alan Alda’s house. The Sally-Jesse-Raphael bra-burning set is probably high-fiving each other. Yoko Ono and Roseanne Barr are almost certainly grinning from ear lobe to ear lobe. A new era has been ushered in by California Senator Barbara Boxer who has openly and adamantly rejected the patriarchal chains that have bound people of her sex for millennia. The false veneer of shallow respect long tossed over the “fair sex” by control-happy, chest-beating, meat-eating, sex-starved men like so much garden mulch has been exposed and blown up with America watching, thanks to the junior senator from the Golden State.

It’s all over now for the word “ma’am.”

It’s the end of an era.

The word “ma’am” will no longer be good enough … so said Boxer, the 68-year old Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee (or is that Chairwoman? Or Chairperson? Or Chairhuman?) to Brigadier General Michael Walsh on Tuesday at a committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

As the General began to answer a question posed by the Senator with the word “ma’am,” Boxer interrupted, “You know, do me a favor. Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’ It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes. Thank you.”

“Yes, Senator,” the General continued.

So there.

And for anyone who didn’t see the video of her making the request, trust me when I say that she wasn’t pleased. In fact, it looks as though she may have sat on a taco salad shell the wrong way.

The question now is … Will anyone ever have the temerity to address any female Senator from this moment forward as “ma’am?”

How long now until the word “ma’am” is deemed an insult or a condescension in popular culture?

How long until officers of the American armed forces are asked to resign their commissions for using the word?

When will this all be worked into “sensitivity training” curricula everywhere?

What next?

Does this mean we can expect not to hear the words “toots” or “love buns” in committee meetings now?

Great. Just great.

Oh God of Political Correctness, why do you mock me?

Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 18, 2009

no parking

An innovative way to avoid the parking meter.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 17, 2009

medved on the air

Once a month on his outstanding radio program – coinciding with coming of the full moon – Michael Medved dedicates all three hours of his show to conspiracies. For me, his “Conspiracy Day” broadcasts are among the most entertaining in all of talk radio. (It’s doubtful I could handle a show fraught with conspiracy theories five days a week – nor could Medved, I suspect – but once a month seems to be just about right).

What makes “Conspiracy Day” so enjoyable is that the people who call into the program are not necessarily obvious crackpots – although Medved does get his fair share of moonbats. Rather, a good portion of the participants who chime in with theories of hidden forces that secretly run the world often sound perfectly reasonable and well-spoken – that is, until the conspiracy is revealed.

That’s when eyebrows start to rise and jaws begin to drop.

It is both funny and sad, and always engaging.

Sinister plots ranging from “the real agenda behind fluoridated water” to the idea that the “government was behind the September 11th attacks” are all proffered. You can bet your bottom dollar that on every show there will be at least a few calls touching upon conspiracies involving The Illuminati, Area 51, Skull and Bones, the North American Union and the Kennedy assassination.

One of the oft-broached conspiracy theories on Medved’s monthly excursion into clandestine plots and unsavory schemes is the one that suggests that “the Jews” really run the world – no one specifically, just “the Jews.”

From the banking world to manufacturing and industry, from the media to the government itself, “the Jews” are the real string pullers. Specifics may vary somewhat – whether “the Jews” are a group of bunker dwelling magnates somewhere in Europe, or a band of Zionists who operate a command center beneath a 7-11 in Wyoming – but the gist of the claim is generally the same.

“The Jews” secretly control the planet.

Proof that this theory is alive and well can be found in the comments made last week by life-long religious mentor (until recently) to the President of the United States, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Said Wright, as he expressed his aggravation at not being able to confer with Obama, “Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.


Perhaps the Reverend was referring to David Axelrod, who is almost certainly being blamed by the ever-tolerant and fun-loving Wright for keeping the President from attending the World Conference on Racism in April.

As Aaron Goldstein at the Intellectual Conservative Blog writes:

“Ethic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel,” said Wright.

If the White House doesn’t want Obama “talking like that” then how does he explain the President’s stance on Israeli settlements? Does Wright think Obama traveled to Cairo without Axelrod’s knowledge? For Reverend Wright, all roads lead to hatred and hatred does not intersect with reasoned thinking.

Goldstein is right, of course.

I would also point out that the “crime against humaity” Wright meant to speak out against was “ethnic cleansing BY the Zionist, not OF the Zionist.”

There is a difference.

The wiping out OF Zionists would probably be less offensive to him than, say, the existence of white people or the United States of America … but I’d be guessing. My point is, if one is going to be blatantly and utterly incorrect, the least one can can do is speak properly. Being grammatically challenged and antisemitic are not necessarily synonymous.

With all of this in mind, I thought it would be appropriate to use this blog as a vehicle to finally come clean.

Perhaps against my better judgment – and certainly at the risk of angering my cohorts and colleagues – I think now may be the time to confess.

Indeed, All Jews know this is true, and it is time – in the spirit of full disclosure and with the goal of promoting harmony among all the people of the world – to tell it like it is.

As a Jew, I can do nothing else.

The fact of the matter is … there is a conspiracy, and all Jews are in on it. That includes me, my Rabbi, Jerry Seinfled, Sandy Koufax, all of us.

All of us.

Here goes … (cue the band).

To begin with, each and every one of us is on what we like to call The Mailing List.

We are all made aware of the events being orchestrated and controlled by “the Jews” and exactly how it is being done via daily updates. We are also apprised of how Jewish money is being spent, who is being bought and sold, what tactics are being used to control the non-Jew, who is complying, and who is resisting. We receive hard copy updates via “snail mail” disguised as a “coupon” envelope filled with useless coupons (which, you’ll notice, most people innocently throw away), as well as three daily electronic updates mailed from anonymous servers in Austria with the nondescript subject line, “Enhance Your Sexual Performance!”

It isn’t SPAM.

The word “Sexual” means “Jewish” in code.

For those in mixed marriages, note how often your household receives “reminder” notices from a dentist that neither you nor your spouse have ever seen, informing you that you are overdue for a checkup.

Throw them away if you will, but these cards are really code for “all things are proceeding as planned.”

All Jews (practicing and not) receive residual deposits in their bank accounts from either “H&K Home Products” or “Jackie’s Fabrics” on a monthly basis just for being “one of the gang.” Whenever another gentile falls in line somewhere, we all get a bonus that shows up on our bank statements as “Bank Fee Reversal.”

We also receive automatic discounts on Entenmann’s cakes, but that’s neither here nor there.

As many have suspected, Paul Wolfowitz himself mails out “Isn’t great to be a Jew” updates in the form of oil changing coupons that are always conveniently expired by the time they hit the mailbox.

It’s also true that every computer crash that occurs within the continental United States is personally supervised and executed by either Larry David or a luggage wholesaler out of Philadelphia called Shlomo.

There’s more, but I just haven’t the time nor server space to spare. (I have a “meeting” to go to this afternoon).

I think you get the idea.

It’s all true.

With every fiber of my being, I want to express my most sincere apologies to my brethren for “spilling the beans” on how things operate.

I especially want to apologize to Harry and Moshe – the two guys in Austria who have secretly run Planet Earth until now – for exposing the truth. I know Harry has been laid up in bed since he fell, but I want him to know that I will be around soon to explain things in person. (I will bring those danish you like with the raisins).

Please accept my apologies.

And to Moshe (if you’re reading this)… the pin for the new ATM card is L-A-T-K-E. There is a $2 billion a day spending limit, so be careful.

I should also apologize to the great Michael Medved, who will certainly be peturbed with me (along with everyone else) for shedding light on this conspiracy. Sadly, half of his “Conspiracy Day” fodder has been taken off the table thanks to me.

Luckily, there are enough people out there who believe President Bush, by remote control, guided the planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11 to keep the phone banks sizzling.

Again, I’m sorry.

Posted in Antisemitism, humor, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2009

Go Green_Brown

It isn’t possible to swing a dead ferret (or one of a billion special-edition Obama Inaugural collector’s magazines that are still on sale at a newsstand near you) these days without hitting something that urges us to “Go Green.” There is hardly a place one can even draw a breath anymore without being peppered by pleas – nay, demands – that we, the citizenry of the world, live a “greener” lifestyle. From grocery store flyers to signs attached to garbage cans, from leftocrat school curricula to simple radio commercials, the ongoing, never-ending battle cry is “Go Green!” It is the mantra of today’s cause-obsessed left – always starving for some new morality to rally behind, while remaining steadfast in their unwillingness to take on the true enemies of humankind, namely evil humans.

Of course, the Grand Poobah of today’s environmentalist whitewash, Al Gore, would sooner call a Hummer-driving, air-conditioning-running, incandescent light-bulb burning supporter of George W. Bush evil before he would a suicide bomber who wipes out innocents, but I am speaking as an adult here, not a liberal.

The truth is, all roads in the current battle for a “greener” planet emanate from one place … the impending catastrophe of man-made global warming.

(It is imperative to clarify that the problem, as defined by the greenies, is “man-made.” If it were proven to these enviro-warriors that the warming they fear is simply a natural phenomenon, none of them would care if temperatures went up fifteen degrees, let alone one over the course of a century).

Not that the planet has been warming at all for several years, but as long as judgments don’t have to be levied against the value sets of other people (except, of course, in the case of greedy capitalists, fossil-fuel consuming narcissists and anyone who buys into the free market sham), morality can continue to be defined inappropriately and cowardly.

The irony is that for things to be “greener,” temperatures would, in fact, have to be warmer.

Remember your four seasons?

When things start to get “greener,” isn’t that something associated with warming temperatures? Aren’t spring and summer the times of year when the mercury is trending upward? Aren’t they the warm weather seasons?

Greener trees, shrubs and fields are almost always the result of rising temperatures. Most foliage thrives in the warm weather. Food is more plentiful when temperatures rise. Economically, warmer periods are more prodictive.

Wouldn’t it better – or, at least, make more sense – for the environmentalists to ask us all to “Go Grey?”

Or “Go Brown?”

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 15, 2009

abandoned detroit

Does this scenario sound familiar?

An entrepreneur comes along and develops a new product – lets call it nose hair conditioner. He sets up shop in a place that is business-friendly – lets call it Nice Town, USA.

Demand is high for his new product, and before Mr. Entrepreneur can say “Damn, I Love Free Enterprise!” the nose hair conditioner market is taking off.

Wealth is being created.

As a result, Nice Town, USA begins to attract productive and creative people from all over. More and more capital is infused into the local economy. The nose hair plant expands. Pretty soon, ear hair plants and toe jam plants begin to spring up.

Nice Town, USA is growing.

Then, right on cue, the productive are joined (and eventually outnumbered) by the bloodsuckers and opportunists who see Nice Town, USA as an untapped nipple of wealth – lets call them politicians. The business owners and working people of Nice Town are told by these smooth talking snake-oil merchants that while their successes are something to be proud of, danger looms ahead. Capitalism is great, they say, but there are too many uncontrolled no-goodniks out there who want to use and abuse the free market to screw over the little guy. Unless government can protect them from themselves, the future is downright grim. And unless government’s best friend, the union, is brought in and allowed to look after all the Johnny Lunchbuckets who slave and toil in the nose hair plants, there may not even be a future.

“We are here to help. We are here to unify,” say the leeches who speak pretty words.

The old school, antiquated, free-market types who ran things before cannot compete stylistically with the new slicksters. The old guard is stuffy, uninteresting and almost certainly racist.

Nice Town, USA must now head in a new direction. The city must become progressive.

It all sounds so reasonable.

The bloodsuckers then move into power.

They begin to siphon the life blood from the area through regulation and taxation.

Slowly but surely, over time, the productive and creative element of Nice Town, USA grow weary of the leeches. While government continues to move left and grow larger, the very best people – once the very heart and soul of Nice Town, USA – gradually leave to find places like the one Mr. Entrepeneur originally found when he began his nose hair conditioning empire – business-friendly and accommodating to wealth creation.

Nice Town, USA – once a thriving city of industry – eventually falls on hard times as the wealth builders leave. Nothing new is being created there because it isn’t profitable to do so anymore.

The city begins to crumble under the weight of government intervention and union domination.

What’s left behind is an oppressive “finger-in-everyone’s pie” bureaucratic establishment, a diminishing working class, and a whole lot of people forced to live off the government’s teat thanks to liberal, incentive-raping, creativity-shattering policies that help no one.

If all of that does sound familiar, it should.

That’s how you get cities like Flint, Michigan – a shell of its former self, once the home of the great General Motors Corporation.

That’s how cities die.

So, what exactly is the answer to the question of what to do about dying cities?

If you said, “Create incentives to get investors to rebuild,” you’re as wrong as astroturf.

To many, the only answer is more government intervention – specifically, using taxpayer dollars to bulldoze entire sections of cities to the ground in the hope of reeling in out of control costs. It’s called the “shrink to survive” approach.

Tom Leonard from UK Telegraph online writes:

The government is looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the “rust belt” of America’s Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

Forget questioning whether or not it is a good idea to plow over abandoned  areas of cities to promulgate recovery. Personally, it befuddles me – with a superfluity of evidence to feed my confusion – why anyone in their right mind would turn to government to solve these problems.

Why is it that liberals reflexively assume that power must always be placed in the hands of elected officials for things to get done? And why is it when things don’t get done by the ever-inefficient, over-sized, unaccountable government – which is just shy of always – the liberal response is to give government more to do? Take a look at the cities in question – Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, etc. The common thread is that they’re all run by Democrats with big government leftist agendas.

The real question is whether or not such decisions about bulldozing neighborhoods (and what criteria will be used to decide which areas will be flattened) is something that should be controlled at the federal level. Is this something that really needs to be added to the already long list of things the Obamacrats have to have their paws in?

If this “knock-em-down” idea is going to become a reality in cities that have been ravaged by liberalism, then at the very least, keep it local.  Keep the feds out of it.

Better yet, let the free market do its thing. The best thing any government can do is get the hell out of the way.

Why is it that the answer with liberals always lies in taking away liberties and money from the people?

Why is it that the idea of lowering taxes and creating incentives for people to come back to abandoned areas to rebuild is not an option? Gentrification is a successful reality in many urban areas across the country – areas once seen as hopelessly beyond rescue. I’ve seen these types of renaissances happen myself in several neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York.

Large corporations and governments don’t revive the economies of neighborhoods. Small businesses do.

It’s all about the private sector.

Knocking down the abandoned buildings of a community will not suddenly make what’s left thrive.

Policies have to change first. The landscape will eventually follow – in the right way.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2009

obama with his feet up

The picture in question (taken Monday) depicts the President of the United States speaking on the telephone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I have a few reactions to this now controversial picture –  the least of which is that someone needs to tell the President of the United States to take his damn feet off the furniture. Using such a celebrated and historic piece as the HMS Resolute desk as a hassock is unbecoming.

It simply would never occur to me to lay my feet on such a treasured artifact, let alone allow a less-than-flattering photograph of me doing so to be released. Of course, I am not cut of messianic cloth, nor do I play a messiah on this blog, so I admit to being out of my league.

As I have written about several times since his anointment, tradition and history mean less to this President than his predecessors.

A far cry from the famous images of John Kennedy working at the Resolute desk while little John John played below, Obama’s regular-guy, kick back style is presumably meant to depict this White House as more accessible and relatable to the common folk – like having vulgar comedians speak at what used to be “stuffy” washington insider events, or taking the wife to New York City for a “Date Night.” Unfortunately, his less-than-presidential approach serves no purpose beyond making the White House a less dignified one.

Looking at the picture, I also cannot help but wonder where his liberal heart has gone.

How is it that the man whose stated mission is to tear down cultural and political barriers and bring the world together for a giant group hug – the man whose compassion and appreciation of the sensitivities of people from every corner of the globe has been heralded and slobbered over as one of the benchmarks of a new age of global understanding – didn’t make it a priority to remember that Middle Easterners take it as an insult to be shown the sole of the foot?

It’s not as if he is prone to ignorance, mind you. He certainly made it his business to avoid “insulting” anyone during the first leg of his American Apology Tour by bowing to the Saudi king, remember? The picture, after all, does show the leader of the free world – a man who has promised to wash away the bad feelings created by the previous administration – leaning back, with the bottom of his feet to the camera, speaking to the leader of the Israel.

Not particularly presidential, nor very complimentary.

Not very bright either.

Granted, it isn’t a traditional insult to Jews as it is to Arabs, but many Isrealis are taking it as such.

Howard Arenstein from CBS World Watch writes:

Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an “insult” to Israel.

They saw the incident as somewhat akin to an incident last year, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad.

It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone. It is not a Jewish custom necessarily, but Israel feels enough a part of the Middle East after 60 years to be insulted too.

Was there a subliminal message intended from the White House to Netanyahu in Jerusalem, who is publicly resisting attempts by Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to force Israel to stop any kind of settlement activity in occupied territories once and forever?

Whether or not it is true, it shows the mood in Israel. They feel cornered. The reactions out of Israel reflect that feeling.

In and of itself, under normal “non-leftist-in-office” circumstances, the photograph would probably not have triggered nearly as much controversey as it has.

But the controversey is real … and certainly the most critically important point in this matter is the perception among many Israelis that their country’s relationship with an Obama-led United States is rapidly changing for the worse. The steadfast alliance between the two nations has now hit a very dangerous crossroads, and the President seems more than willing to let that very important friendship take a big hit. The obsession with bonafide leftists like Obama to create moral equivelancies across the board in the form of elevating the enemies of freedom while abandoning liberty’s defenders is now manifesting itself in the form of high ranking Israeli officials talking about possible sanctions against the United States.

This is coming from one of America’s strongest allies.

How long has Obama been in office?

From the Jerusalem Post:

In a sign of growing concern in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government over US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies, Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled proposed Israeli sanctions on the US in a letter to cabinet ministers on Sunday.

In the 11-page letter, obtained by The Jerusalem Post from a minister on Monday, Peled recommends steps Israel can take to compensate for the shift in American policy, which he believes has become hostile to Israel.

“Obama’s ascendance represents a turning point in America’s approach to the region, especially to Israel,” he wrote in the letter. “The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state.”

Peled added that faced with an American government with an activist agenda that does not mesh with Israel’s, traditional reactions are no longer relevant. He said he expected that Obama would eventually realize that appeasement and dialogue with countries that support terror would not have positive results.

Obamacrats are concerned with legacy.

The most disturbing passage in Howard Arnstein’s article reads:

Israel’s Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an “American official” in Jerusalem that, “We are going to change the world. Please, don’t interfere.” The report said Netanyahu’s aides interpreted this as a “threat.”

Prior to embarking on the latest leg of his American Apology Tour to the Middle East last week, the President made it a point to declare that he was not in favor of the United States (or Israel, for that matter) imposing their values on other nations. Yet, Bam and Company are unwavering in saying Israel must stop any and all settlement activity in the occupied territories.


Imposition anyone?

Indeed, one of the most overused – and incorrectly applied – words in public discourse today is “hypocrisy.”

Not in this case.

Gabriel Malor from the great Ace of Spades blog writes:

I don’t even have the words to say how shameful Obama’s treatment of our allies has been. But this is more horrifying than merely irritating our coalition partners; it goes beyond destroying our special relationship with the UK. Those are bad things, but this is beyond the pale. He is throwing a good people to the wolves. It sickens me.

The Messiah has been in office less than six months.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Israel, Liberalism, Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 10, 2009


Many thanks to The Great One, talk show host (and author extraordinaire) Mark Levin, for airing two clips from a speech given by actor Jon Voigt at a Republican fundraiser on his radio program on Tuesday.

As articulate and well-spoken as the vast majority of talking-point pundits and one-trick politicians out there (if not more), Voigt was spot on with his commentary. He spoke with refreshing clarity and conviction – and you can bet the deed to the house he will not be invited to the Sean Penn home anytime soon for cocktail weenies and shrimp rolls.

Levin called Voigt a “real thinker, a reader and a believer. He’s a patriot.”

Noteworthy is the fact – quite obviously – that Voigt is (at least, professionally) a member of the Hollywood community. (He did a marvelous job, most recently, on Fox’s 24).  That he leans right of center – and is unafraid to say so, given his profession – is more than praiseworthy.

I admire him greatly.

From one of the most uncourageous, uninspiring and uninteresting communities of people in the world – Hollywood actors – comes this burst of fortitude and strength.

Speaking of President Barack Obama, Voigt said:

Was I hearing things when he said Iran might have the right to nuclear power? Are we supposed to be sitting and waiting, watching for the possibility of a new holocaust? Who’s going to take the responsibility to keep Israel safe?

I’ll tell you why this really scares the hell out of me … because everything Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous.

As Levin said, “Too bad Colin Powell can’t see this and can’t speak like Jon Voigt.”

As often as it needs to be repeated – and I will do so until the undertaker fits me for my final set of traveling clothes – today’s Democrat cannot be trusted with national security. That’s because leftists – synonymous today with the Democrat Party – see the world as they wish it to be – not as it truly is. They create policies based on emotion and fantasy-land, coloring-book scenarios.

You may recall that the President, just prior to his “I’m Sorry” tour of the Middle East, said he wants America to “lead by example” – which, as I pointed out a few days ago, has truly proven to be a wonderfully effective way of defeating evil. The muster of nations who have crossed over from the Despots List to the Good Guy Review simply by watching what we do could take at least several nano-seconds to name.

Voigt continued:

It saddens me greatly to think we were the great, powerful good in the world. We, as Americans, knew America to be strong. And we were the liberators of the entire world.

We are becoming a weak nation.

Obama really thinks he is soft-spoken Julius Caesar. He thinks he is going to conquer the world with his soft-spoken sweet-talk. And really thinks he is going to bring all the enemies of the world into a little playground where they’ll swing each other back and forth.

We, and we alone, are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama repression.

To quote Mark Levin, “the man speaks the truth.”

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, Hollywood, politics, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 8, 2009

Euna Lee and Laura King

Euna Lee and Laura Ling

I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before some Obamalicious blog demon, or thesaurus-happy Daily Kos protégé, is able to craft a piece that somehow finds a way to blame George W. Bush for this. If not Bush specifically, then certainly the United States in general – or at least the United States as it had been shaped by the war-hungry, right-wing regime that preceded the Messianic Age.

Either way, now may be the perfect time for the President of the United States to finally sit down with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il – as he has said he would be thrilled to do as the anti-Bush President – and kick it around a bit. After all, two American journalists have been sentenced in North Korea – for crimes unspecified – to twelve years of hard labor. It is now the President’s job to find out what these two reporters have to done to anger Kim Jong Il and exactly what the United States must do to keep Mr. Jong Il from getting any angrier.

Blaine Harden from the Washington Post writes:

Laura Ling and Euna Lee, television reporters detained in March along North Korea’s border with China, received harsher sentences than many outsiders had expected. But several experts in South Korea predicted that talks will begin soon to negotiate their release.

The U.S. government said it was “deeply concerned.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that the United States is thinking – I say, thinking – of returning North Korea to the “blacklist” of terrorist nations.

A bold move.

Whether the United States is also considering calling Kim Jong Il a bad name or threatening to never allow North Korea a seat on the United Nations’ Human Rights Council is unclear.

(Reports of high-level State Department officials referring to Kim Jong Il as “a meanie” cannot be confirmed).

On possibly putting North Korea back on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism – and in responding to a group of Senators who have requested that the Obamacrats do so – Senator Clinton said, “Well, we’re going to look at it … There’s a process for it. Obviously we would want to see recent evidence of their support for international terrorism.”

This is why Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.

North Korea was already on that list. They were removed for promising to make concessions regarding their nuclear program – which they clearly have not followed through on. What precisely does Mrs. Clinton need to see that would convince her that North Korea should be returned to that list? What further “evidence” is required?

She probably refuses to jump to any Bush-era “Axis of Evil” conclusions.

Meanwhile, the trial of Ling and Lee went off with a hitch … apparently.

The five-day trial of Ling and Lee was held in Pyongyang’s Central Court, the top court in North Korea. Outside observers were not allowed.

“The trial confirmed the grave crime they committed against the Korean nation and their illegal border crossing,” the official Korean Central News Agency said. It said the court sentenced “each of them to 12 years of reform through labor.”

The “grave crime,” however, was not explained. The reporters had earlier been accused of unspecified “hostile acts.” Legal analysts in South Korea said the North Korean court may have sentenced the women to the maximum of 10 years of hard labor for hostile acts and added on two years for illegal entry.

The detention and sentencing of the two journalists has coincided with — and become entangled in — a series of provocative acts by North Korea that this spring have angered its neighbors, its historical allies and much of the world.

Long range missile firings and nuclear weapon tests aside, if President Obama can find out which motion pictures are personal favorites of Mr. Jong Il, and then house them in an attractive display case, the United States can come to the negotiation table with a leg up. Bam can even throw in an autographed copy of his book, an audio library of his best teleprompter reads and strict assurances that the United States will never, ever do anything to provoke or irritate North Korea.

As Blaine Harden of the Washington Post writes:

In the past, North Korea has released Americans who have entered the country illegally. The government also has a history of brinkmanship, turning confrontation and bluster into negotiations that reward it with food, fuel and other concessions.

The two incarcerated journalists work for Current TV – a cable network led by former Vice President Al Gore that probably trails the Belly Button Lint Network in terms of viewership. 

And although not asked to do so – and with no prompting from the studio audience – family members of both of these journalists have offered public apologies to North Korea for whatever “crimes”  they may have committed.


Because evil dictators always take into account the heartfelt pleas of suffering Americans when conducting their affairs.

Al Gore, HeroUp to this point, Mr. Gore has been silent on the matter, but there is speculation that he could go to North Korea himself to handle negotiations for the journalists’ release.

Whether or not he will help save the Earth by using a hybrid to get to North Korea is unclear.

The truth is … I pray for both of these women to return home safely and quickly.

I sincerely do.

After a series of “Hey, look at me! I’m important!” gestures on the part of North Korea, most agree that at some point soon these journalists will be released as part of yet another “deal” struck between the United States and North Korea.

Al Gore would, indeed, be perfect for that.

Lord knows, he’s had enough practice apologizing to the trees and sky for how horrible humanity has treated them.

Posted in Foreign Policy, North Korea | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 5, 2009


Is there anything that could (or would) be more surprising than to find out that an upstanding, impeccably above-board, beyond-reproach community organization such as ACORN, which advocates for a host of social issues for people on the lower end of the income ladder – including health care and voter registration – might have more than a little bit of corruption in its ranks?

Recall that during the last Presidential election cycle, ACORN was a hot button political issue. The organization’s endorsement of President Obama was a controversial one because of numerous allegations of voter registration fraud against them. The fact that Obama (along with others) served as ACORN’s lawyer while the organization battled a voting rights lawsuit thirteen years earlier brought on additional allegations of a conflict of interest leading up to November’s election. It didn’t exactly make things any easier for the Big O that his campaign hired an ACORN affiliated group – for nearly a million dollars – to run one of those much heralded “Get-Out-The-Vote” drives. (Thank goodness the mainstream media took it upon themselves to serve as his de facto press secretary during the campaign).

And now, with the echoes of accusations of widespread voter fraud still resonating from the campaign season, comes this little ditty from the great website – something that will go largely ignored by the mainstream media:

Four former ACORN workers in western Pennsylvania will face trial on charges that they forged, illegally solicited or illegally filled out voter registration cards before the November election.

That’s after a court hearing in Pittsburgh on Friday.

Twenty-year-old Pittsburgh resident Eric Jones waved his preliminary hearing. Three others were held for trial: 23-year-old West Mifflin resident Alexis Givner and two Pittsburgh residents, 21-year-old Ashley Clarke and 28-year-old Mario Grisom.

Prosecutors charged seven ACORN workers in May. One had already been ordered to stand trial and two others had their preliminary hearings postponed.

I have recently pulled so many things from my “If This Had Been a Republican” file, there’s only lint left in the cabinet where the folder used to be.

Try to envision any group with political leanings toward the right – say, a faith-based organization – who not only conducted “Get-Out-The-Vote” campaigns across the country, but endorsed the Republican candidate for President of the United States amidst widespread allegations of voter registration fraud. Just imagine that same group in a similar situation as ACORN – particularly if the Republican candidate had won the election – having former campaign-season workers facing trial for forging, illegally soliciting and/or illegally filing voter registration cards.

By now, we’d know the address, religion, skin color, past affiliations, blood type, personal hygiene habits and medical histories of each of these people. Perhaps the Connecticut Working Families Party would be scheduling bus tours to drive by the houses of such unconscionable people.

Such a scandal would knock the “hanging chad” out of the big leagues.

Posted in Ethics, Political Corruption | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 5, 2009


New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine is one of those Democrats with a genuine way with words. His ability to get right to the heart of a given matter with unparalleled clarity and cohesiveness of thought is something to behold.

He’s also spectacularly clever.

He uses terms like “bush-whacked” when criticizing Republican policies.

Get it?

(I told you he was a pistol).

And so it was that following his victory against piddling opposition in the New Jersey Democratic primary on Tuesday – with Jumpin’ Joe Biden by his side – he explained to the enthralled masses how the other side really operates.

Said Governor Corzine:

They say that government should be small, small enough to slip under your bedroom door, small enough to root for a new president to fail, narrow enough to divide us by gender and ethnicity over a supreme court nominee, and self-righteous enough to dictate their own religious beliefs to the rest of us.

They,” of course, means Republicans – specifically, Christopher Christie, who won the Republican state primary on Tuesday and will face off against Corzine in the November election.

It’s almost refreshing to see Governor Corzine playing the tattered, battered, always popular “I want the new President to fail” card in attacking his opposition. I hadn’t heard it used since Wednesday.


I won’t waste bandwidth and server space by rehashing my rebuttal to this stale, disingenuous, off-the-rack attempt to peddle falsehoods about those of us on the right who oppose the President’s leftist game plan.

I will, however, make two points about his tired “See, how mean they are? They want him to fail!” screed.

First, I couldn’t care less if Obama is a new president, an old president, a coming-back-for-a-return-engagement president, or a president-to-be-named-later.

I’m not sure I can be any clearer about this.

I cannot dumb it down any further for the Huffington Post set – I want his leftist policies to fail.

I don’t believe in them, history doesn’t support them, the Founding Fathers never envisioned a nation run with them, and I am thoroughly convinced that the country as we know it will fail because of them. And seeing as do not want my country to fail, and since I believe that infusing Marxism into America’s bloodstream will make her increasingly more sick with time, and because what President Obama is doing is turning this nation in a radically left direction, I want him to fail.


Second, Governor Corzine needn’t offer comments about “failure” unless he is giving a “how-to” seminar on the subject.

As far as his little comment about those of us on the right wanting a government “narrow enough to divide us by gender and ethnicity over a supreme court nominee,” may I remind the Governor exactly who it was that brought up the issue of race in the first place in the matter of Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor? Was it a Republican who suggested that a Latina woman was capable of making better decisions as a jurist than a white male? From whose lips did those racist comments come from, Governor Corzine?

I’ll wait while you use one of your lifelines.

Finally, I simply love the Governor’s use of the word “dictate.” 

It’s such a forbidding word, don’t you think? 

As the root of the word “dictator,” it’s almost a scary word.

Indeed, that’s the point.

Isn’t it an absolute riot to listen to liberals complain about conservatives who supposedly “dictate” things to the rest of us?

I humbly ask … Which side wants to “dictate” a new definition for marriage? Which side “dictates” multicultural curricula in public schools? Which side “dictates” that tax dollars will go to fund embryonic stem-cell research? Which side wants to “dictate” how health care will be handled in this country? Which side “dictates” when it is okay for corporations to make profits? Which side wants to “dictate” how corporations should run themselves in order to save the planet from unproven man-made climactic catastrophe?

Posted in Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 3, 2009

obama middle east

Had he not been elected to the most powerful office in the world – and if not for his capacious and affecting community organizing resume – perhaps President Barack Obama might have found a proportionate level of success as a professional arbitrator or matchmaker. The chances are quite good, for instance, that he could have brought the pot and the kettle a little closer together.

The President, on the eve of his trip to the Middle East – where perhaps a new set of apologies for American deeds are on the docket for international consumption – said the United States was not there to lecture or impose its values on countries with questionable records on human rights and political freedoms, like Egypt, where he is scheduled to grovel tomorrow.

Said the President:

“The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.”

This, of course, is coming from the man who has literally “imposed” his radical Marxist-flavored agenda on his own country – the leader of the party quick to chide conservatives for being ideologues and quick to accuse them of trying to impose their value systems on liberty-loving Americans who measure their freedoms by their ability to abort children at will and the ease with which they can acquire condoms at school.

Surely, there must be something amiss here.

obama_dictatorThe President can’t be against imposing values on those who may not agree with him, can he? From the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, to the government takeover of General Motors, to the closing of Guantanamo Bay, to the unparalleled expansion of government, to the exponential inflating of the national debt, to using taxpayer money to help fund abortions overseas, to the nominating of an unqualified jurist to the Supreme Court, how is it that Obama is now all-of-a-sudden anti-imposition?

Let me humbly suggest that Obama is not against the imposition of value sets on human beings who may not be so ready to jump on his waffle wagon. Rather, because he is a leftist of prodigious proportion, he is opposed to any imposition of conservative values.

That seems to make more sense, doesn’t it?

Indeed, like anyone in power, Obama selectively chooses his “impositions” – only he throws in an unmistakable dictatorial twist.

The man has used a plethora of public funds to attempt to “save” private entities from ruin – something completely antithetical to the free market system that built this nation – and in the process is on track to create a national debt larger than the combined debt of the previous 43 presidents. He has spent almost incalculable amounts of taxpayer money on pork-barrel projects supposedly geared to stimulate economic growth – projects like making public housing projects more “green” and supplying doorknobs to buildings that need new ones – and in the process, has afforded the federal government the opportunity to literally run a private corporation. He is also in the process of completely transforming the medical delivery system in this nation – with unprecendented, unchecked speed – into a nightmarish rationed European-style government-run healthcare debacle where Washington will serve as everyone’s HMO.

If that’s not imposition, what is?

Of course, the President won’t be dealing with American conservatives overseas. He’ll be taking his Kleenex-spined, “Let’s not tick anyone off” Kumbaya approach on the road to the ever-accommodating Middle-East.

Obama has made it clear that the United States will continue to vigorously shake off the irons of crippling Bush-era policies and Reagan-like cowboyism. America won’t be doing any of that “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” nonsense anymore.

Instead, America will serve as a “role model” to the world, as Obama put it.

We will lead by example.

The long list of examples of despotic nations who turned themselves around by taking a page from the American “Lead By Example” songbook will inspire today’s struggling oppressors and violators of decency.

The human-rights deniers and evil-doers of the world will only need to watch America to see the error of their ways.

(Can I get a big “Hell, yeah!” from the audience?)

Indeed, it is a new day in the United States.

(Removes barf bag from top drawer. Keeps it at the ready).

This idea that a President of the United States would be wrongly “imposing” a value system by simply doing what he is supposed to do – that is, advocating for the advancement of freedom, having the conviction to label evil, and promising to protect liberty-loving people everywhere – is shamelessly preposterous. If not the President of the United States, then who else will (or should) affirm the values that foster liberty?

It seems infeasible for liberals to admit certain realities – and not just the obvious stuff, like the existence of evil, or the fact that it’s okay to use the words “Islamic” and “terrorist” in the same sentence. They grapple with the idea that, like it or not, politicians will regularly attempt to infuse, or “impose,” their value set into what they do politically, regardless of what side of the aisle they stand on.

That’s why we elect them.

The value system of the person we elect to represent us is supposed to matter.

Yet, to liberals, only conservatives stoop so low as to “impose” their values on people. While liberals seek to make things better for absolutely everyone (for our own good), conservatives seek to impose. That’s because they see differences between themselves and those on the right as more than just philosophical – they see them as moral. To them, conservatives have ulterior motives. Thus, because conservatives are almost always driven by less than noble aims, conservatism itself is inherently beastly.

Whereas conservatives overwhelmingly believe that libs are simply wrong (with endless data to back up those assertions), liberals believe conservatives are also bad.

It’s all part of liberal denial.

After all, how could saving the world and wishing to make everyone equal be an imposition?

The fact is, politicians from both the left and right regularly attempt to “impose” – to one degree or another – their value systems on the electorate – although conservatives do it far less than liberals do.

It can’t be denied.

By definition, because conservatives believe in small government – and thus, less government intrusion – there is less to “impose.” The key is that conservatives tend to adhere to the letter of the Constitution – or profess to do so – while liberals openly and unabashedly manipulate what they believe is a pliable document – a Constitution that lives and breathes – into often unrecognizable conformations that allow them to easier “impose” their agendas on the public, i.e. Roe vs Wade. (The Constitution, for example,  is silent on abortion and enumerates no rights to privacy, but thanks to “emanations” and “penumbras,” it magically became a Constitutional matter).

In short, this entire matter is really just a case of “To Impose or Not To Impose.” It’s all about the situation, the audience and the political points that can be scored.

(Gee, what else is new?)

The Obama foreign policy template is to make sure to avoid annoying, offending, or upsetting anyone at all costs – except, possibly, the Israelis. The same basic “offend no one” approach holds true on the domestic front –  except, of course, where conservatives are concerned.  All bets are off at that point. They’re fair game to be chastised, criticized, marginalized and excluded – except when Bam grants safe (and controlled) passage.

Indeed, Obama calls for unity, but a quick gander at the Obama/English dictionary shows that “unity” simply means he wants everyone to think like him.

Talk about imposition.

Please understand my point here when it comes to this notion of not wanting to “impose” values on others. I think it’s a vague term to begin with, and unless the President is thinking of invading Egypt and installing a democratic government, he simply sounds silly and weak. Defending the values that have made (and continue to make) the United States the greatest nation the world has ever known – and making the case for those values – is not an imposition on anyone.

Obviously,  I don’t expect him (or want him) to go into Saudi Arabia – or anywhere – like a guns-a-blazin’ lunatic and start demanding things and insulting those who are welcoming him into their country. I wouldn’t ask that of any president. That isn’t my point.

There are ways to do things, and there are ways to do things.

I suppose that in the wake of President Obama’s unfounded plan to close Guantanamo Bay, and his moronic move to announce publicly the United States withdrawal date from Iraq, I could make the claim that the President is “imposing” his security-compromising policies and terrorist-appeasing war plan on folks like me who regard national security and the realities of living in a dangerous world as an adult matter.

But alas, I am only an American conservative – and that’s pretty low on the Bam totem pole.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 2, 2009

but does the AC work?

but does the AC work?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2009

frost warning

I have to assume planet Earth is still teetering on the brink of environmental disaster due to the ravages of man-made global warming. (I haven’t heard anything about it for a few hours, so I’m simply guessing).

As someone who fancies himself a bit of gardener, let’s just say that I don’t want to have to be subjected to this emotional roller coaster ride anymore.

Is there nothing humanity can do to try and make sure my impatiens and geraniums don’t go through another scare like this again? Or my begonias? Can people please stop being so self-absorbed with their combustion engines, hairspray cans and flatulence and pay attention to the potential damage they’re doing to my garden? This blasted man-made global warming almost ruined my flowers – and just when they were really starting to get going, too.

Luckily, all of my plants and flowers survived, but it was close.

Nothing throws a lump of black coal into my Cheerios bowl like a man-made global warming frost watch.

From via The Drudge Report:

Local gardeners may want to take special measures to protect their plants this evening as a frost advisory has been issued for much of New York state, including Oneida County.

The advisory issued by the National Weather Service remains in effect until 8 a.m. Monday.

Temperatures are expected to fall into the mid-to-low 30s overnight, and a hard frost is likely as temperatures in colder areas approach freezing.

Brad Alcott, owner of Alcott’s Greenhouses in Waterville, said the possible frost may catch some gardeners off guard.

“Memorial Day has always been the rule of thumb for planting in the garden. So June 1 is definitely late,” he said.

What a selfish species we are.

Damn this global warming!

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2009

bam-a-lang-a-ding-dong bam fans

bam-a-lang-a-ding-dong bam fans

From the “If This Were A Republican” file …

As hard as this may be to believe, I was  not in Manhattan on Saturday to become one of the fawning, adoring, saliva-dripping periphery going ga-ga over Obama’s big “date night” in New York. I did not grab my digital camera and home-made “You Barrack My World” sign, head into the city and stand behind a barricade for hours so that I might catch a glimpse of his  right ear as he passed into a restaurant.

It is hard to believe, I know.

Alas, I admit to being a stick in the mud – completely unimpressed, quick-to-yawn and bored to tears when it comes to the mania that surrounds Big Bam.

I find yogurt more culturally enticing – and easier to stomach.

Indeed, I was in the city on Saturday, but not because I hoped to become one of the fortunate ones afforded the opportunity to share the same oxygen stream with him. My wife and I actually had a wonderful lunch with some friends of ours at Carmine’s on 44th Street, several hours before the royal family arrived for dinner and a show. To be perfectly honest, I was unaware that Mr. and Mrs. Messiah would be in town – although the sound of air force jets and presidential helicopters should have alerted me to his arrival, along with the thuds of fainting Manhattanites.

For the record, I’d like to say that I couldn’t give a squirrel’s nostril if the President comes to New York to see a show. He’s entitled. It isn’t as if he can just pop into his Subaru with the Missus and head up to New York for supper and a Broadway play. At the first rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike, he’d be crushed by frenzied, orgasmic Obama-maniacs looking for a piece of his clothing or a bite of his waffle. A President with torn threads, covered in spit-dripping kisses is probably not a good thing.

What fascinates me more is trying to imagine the coverage of a Presidential New York City “date night” had the Commander-In-Chief been a Republican.

Depending on which day you catch Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, the economy is either the worst it has been since the Great Depression (or worse), or it is finally coming around thanks to his astronomical spending sprees, debt creation and overall Marxist tweaking.

Either way, Obama has himself covered.

Recall last week when Obama told a group of self-gratifying Hollywood lefties at a big bucks fundraiser that conditions are starting to improve economically across the country. His spendulous bill, he insisted, is starting to show some returns – and coincidentally enough, just before his big date in the Big Apple.

Far be it from me to deny anyone a night out on the town – especially the leader of the almost-free world.

Go ahead, take a break, Mr. President. You deserve it. A relaxing getaway to New York is more than reasonable. After all, infusing Marxism into a free market system can be taxing.

Picture Republican George W. Bush hand-in-hand with Laura Bush, emerging from a limo in the heart of Manhattan’s Greenwich Village for dinner before zooming uptown to catch a Broadway show, while news stories circulate on how the unemployment rate is approaching double-digits. Can you imagine the brutal beating he would take in the press had he gone on a Big Apple “date night” on the taxpayer’s dime while Katie Kouric and company tell us all about the endless number of Americans being hammered by what was not too long ago “the worst economy ever?”

People are losing their homes in this economy, and Bush is eating out?”

“How could that out-of-touch, insensitive, bible-thumping, oil company-loving, fascist, baby-killing Bush flaunt his power and prestige by seeing a Broadway play at the taxpayer’s expense when billions and billions of Americans are homeless and starving?”

Thanks to the coming of the new Messianic Age, we need not bother with such conjecture.

Posted in American culture, New York City, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »