Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for December, 2009


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009

Read just about any conservative blog. There is no denying – nor should there be – that the blogosphere is rife with passionate anti-Obama sentiment. From hard analysis to parody, from opinion pieces to political cartoons, conservatives are not shy about expressing their extraordinary disfavor with this administration and its destructive policies. Obamacrats are keenly aware of this, going as far as instructing Americans to “tattle” on others who voiced opposition to ObamaCare earlier this year. (Remember that little nugget?)

Conservative bloggers mince no words in their epic distaste and dissatisfaction with the leftist policies being put forth by this President. They see disaster for this freest nation on Earth and take offense when these life-long leftists with no real comprehension of what liberty it is (and how precious it is) try to dismantle the Constitution.

Admittedly, some conservative bloggers are more “colorful” than others, while others successfully get their points across in more subtle and creative ways. But regardless of how it’s done, all of these voices matter.

Millions have expressed their opinions through online petitions, while others have organized and participated in tea-party rallies. Others, still, have confronted their elected representatives at town-hall meetings, demanding that they be properly represented. And while lines have been crossed on occasion – as in all human endeavors, regardless of political affiliation or ideology – these “right wing ideologues” are letting it be known that it is their country, too. They will not be silenced and they will not be ignored. The Constitution means something to them. Liberty is treasured. In unanimously peaceful and law-abiding fashion, conservatives en masse have resisted Obama’s attempt to lurch the nation leftward.

As I have written about on many occasions, leftists don’t just disagree with conservatives, they accuse them of being bad people. To today’s liberal, conservatives are sinister beings, motivated by ulterior motives and unwholesome goals. Conservatives don’t just hold opposing positions, they are corrupt and selfish, controlled by special interests, interested only in making the rich richer at the expense of “regular Americans.” Liberals, meanwhile, are as pure as wind-driven global-warming snow. Howard Dean, you may recall, famously encapsulated the liberal view of Republicans by saying that GOP values support children going hungry at night.

That’s literally how they view conservatives.

With the announcement of Rush Limbaugh’s admission into the hospital yesterday, the lefty blogosphere has been rejuvenated with the kind of hateful rhetoric that can only come from that side. It is the kind of mean-spirited, abominable sentiment that liberals whole-heartedly and unabashedly embrace. It is the kind of disgraceful elocution that validates inviting so-called comediennes, like the repugnant Wanda Sykes, to the White House Correspondents Dinner to joke about the death of Rush Limbaugh (while President Obama laughed). It is a broken value system that legitimizes wishing for the death of someone because of their opposing political views.

At the I Own The World blog, SnarkandBoobs writes:

Some on the Left, however, are on full display as the hateful, creepy people that they truly are. They are wishing for the worst and are almost giddy with excitement, as the comments at TMZ indicate. Some examples:

— I hope he dies. – Posted at 10:03PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Chris

— Best news I’ve heard in years…Hope he joins MJ, the sooner the better! – Posted at 10:02PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Ron Burgundy

— Good riddance! -Posted at 10:01PM on Dec 30th 2009 by james

— Oh, please let him die! Preferably quickly and very painfully. Please, please, PLEASE!!! – Posted at 10:06PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Shittohead

The vile comments, rejoicing in someone’s serious condition, are also rampant on Twitter. I have yet to venture over to HuffPo or Kos because I don’t think that I have water hot enough to wash the icky off of me afterward.

By the way, it’s not a good argument for wanting to take over our health care, Left – wishing DEATH on those with whom you disagree.

Stay Classy, Left. You disgust me.

Interesting to note here is that lefties don’t even know how to be properly vile. One clever wordsmith said, “Good riddance,” although Rush did not die. Another wished for a quick and painful death when everyone knows that suffering is maximized by a slow and painful death.

Libs don’t even know how to be abhorrent correctly.

Speaking of Twitter, these are taken directly from the great Weasel Zippers blog. (Full credit where credit is due. H/T to Zip for compiling it):

I’m sorry leftists, conservatives do not wish for, nor would they call for, the death of Barack Obama in a similar circumstance. If some accident or illness should befall the President – or God forbid, an assassination attempt is made on him – conservatives would not light up the blogosphere with such evil and disgusting sentiments as wishing for him to die. It is inconceivable.

Conservatives don’t wish for the deaths of their ideological opponents – only their political deaths.

“Drink a bottle of cancer?”

“I hope Rush Limbaugh fucking dies?”

Such class.

It’s the inevitable result of anonymity.

And those who would try to compare this to the right’s reaction to Senator Edward Kennedy’s illness and death are being intellectually dishonest. Disgust for Kennedy was not based on his politics. It was based on his being a detestible human being. He was directly responsible for the death of a young woman, leaving her to drown while he walked away to safety. He failed to report the incident for several hours. He was a priveledged, spoiled-brat, drunken philandering elitist who got away with it because of his last name. His staying power in the Senate was hinged on the fact that two of his brothers were murdered. Period.

With that in mind, conservative reaction to his passing still doesn’t hold a candle to the way the cyberspace libs have reacted here with Limbaugh (or even with Tony Snow, for that matter).

Disgust for Limbaugh is based solely on his political views.

The irony here is that the majority of these “Death to Limbaugh” types are probably against the death-penalty.

Incidentally, kudos to those libs who have forwarded well-wishes to Limbaugh. Indeed, there are some.


wordpress statistics


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009

One can predict some of the words and phrases Obamacrats will use: obstructionists, partisans, ideologues, Obama-haters, so on.

No soothsayers needed. Pretty standard stuff.

Defenders of the Constitution will be attacked as corporate marionettes, accused of bending over for insurance companies and pharmaceutical interests. Republicans in general will be (and have been) accused of viciously and callously standing in the way of fundamental human decency by endorsing what will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of billions and billions of Americans. The bodies of the uninsured will litter the streets of the United States as heartless right-wing fat cats step around their rotting corpses, laughing the sinister laugh of the victorious, as they visit their own doctors where all the real medicine is kept.

Left-wing blogs will explode with mendacious outrage and rice-pudding indignation. The words “Nazi,” and “corporate shill” and “desperate” (among others) will soak up enormous amounts of bandwidth as pajama-clad basement-dwelling blogosphere leftocrats rat-a-tat away, condemning the patriots who fight to bury Obamacare by standing up for the Constitution.

It’s what so many of us who have questioned the absurd claims of ObamaCare have been waiting for. It’s what so many of us who have questioned the constitutionality of it all have been hoping would come to fruition.

It’s a very good first step.

As many as thirteen state Attorney Generals – all Republicans – have said that the Nebraska sweetheart deal won by Senator Ben Nelson in exchange for his support of this health-care reform monstrosity is unconstitutional and must be removed from the bill.

From the Associated Press, via Fox News:

Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

“We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed,” South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision,” they wrote.

There is also a great deal to explore regarding the constitutionality of mandating citizens to purchase a free-market service or good – in this case, health insurance – from a private entity, as presecribed in the bill.

One thing at a time, though.

The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.

Last week, McMaster said he was leading several other attorneys general in an inquiry into the constitutionality of the estimated $100 million deal he has dubbed the “Cornhusker Kickback.”

Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina raised questions about the legislation, which they said was amended to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s support.

“Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation,” the attorneys general wrote.

Here’s the funny part … House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina called the letter was “a political ploy.”

Damn right it is.

“This threat stinks of partisan politics,” he said in a statement. “If Henry McMaster wants to write federal law he should run for Congress not governor.”

If it stinks, I like the smell. I hope it comes out in a candle.

I can’t even begin to tell you how comical it is to hear a Democrat decry “partisan politics.” What on earth could be more partisan than having a holdout Senator or two vote for a bill not on its own merits, but as a result of party-unifying bribery? (Is anybody in there, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu?)

Surely Mr. Clyburn is aware that all Senate Democrats voted for the bill. By definition, isn’t that partisan politics?

Clarity, please.

Clyburn needs to think before he speaks. He snidely remarks that South Carolina Attorney General McMaster should run for Congress if he wants to “write federal law.”


Perhaps Clyburn ought to think about actually representing the people – you know,do his job – if he wants to remain in Congress.

At last look, nearly six in ten Americans don’t want this bill passed.

Nice work, Pubs. Don’t let up.

See what happens when they actually set their minds to something?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Democrats, Economy, Harry Reid, health care, Nancy Pelosi, Political Corruption | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009

It was reported on Wednesday that talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh was taken to a hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, where he was vacationing, because of chest pains.

He was reported to be in “serious” condition.

That seems fairly typical for someone rushed to the hospital with chest pains.

From the Associated Press via Fox News:

Paramedics responded to a call at 2:41 p.m. from the Kahala Hotel and Resort where Limbaugh is vacationing, KITV reported. The station, citing unnamed sources, said the 58-year-old Limbaugh was taken to The Queens Medical Center in serious condition.

Queens spokeswoman N. Makana Shook says the hospital is unable to comment on the report.

Like so many others, I want to offer my prayers and very best wishes to Rush for a quick recovery and speedy return to his seat behind the golden EIB microphone.

It goes with out saying, we still need you, my friend.

(Best to get this out of the way now before ObamaCare kicks in).


Update – 31 December 2009 7:46 AM

Rush is resting comfortably.

From Rush Limbaugh’s website, posted yesterday:

Rush was admitted to a Honolulu hospital today and is resting comfortably after suffering chest pains. Rush appreciates your prayers and well wishes. He will keep you updated via and on Thursday’s radio program.

I’m sure Wanda Sykes is pissed off. She almost had some new material. President Obama will just have to find something else to chuckle about.

Posted in Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009

I suppose a round of thanks is in order to all of those nasty greenhouse gas emitters across the globe who threw up their middle fingers at Mother Earth over the course of the past several decades. A huge slice of gratitude probably needs to be extended to every fossil-fuel consuming, incandescent light-bulb using, fireplace burning, disposable diaper buying climate-change criminal on the face of the planet. Tax paying enviro-nazis need to stash away their contempt for the climate-killers and globe-destroyers of the world – even if only for a little while – and acknowledge that if not for the rampant, hockey-stick rise in temperatures caused by unchecked, reckless human activity, things could have been a hell of a lot worse.

This year’s pre-Christmas blizzard packed one hell of a punch, dumping beaucoup snow from Oklahoma to New York. In terms of snow removal, the storm has proven to be a very costly one – costlier than most state budgets have allotted for.

Global warming may have saved the day.

Stephanie Simon and Russell Gold from the Wall Street Journal write:

The blizzards that hit the Midwest and the Eastern Seaboard this month rang up huge snow-removal bills for cash-strapped state and local governments — and left officials scrambling to figure out how they will pay to clear roads later in the winter.

Maryland’s State Highway Administration has spent more than $27 million this year on snow removal, the bulk of that clearing away a massive pre-Christmas storm. But the agency’s annual snow-removal budget is just $26 million.

Colorado officials recently notified residents in rural areas that they will let snow sit overnight on 2,800 miles of sparsely traveled state highways to cut down on overtime costs.

Oklahoma, socked by a Christmas Eve blizzard, is also feeling the pinch. Cleveland County, which covers the southern suburbs of Oklahoma City, had to call in 50 employees for three days of holiday overtime to clear a foot of snow. The bill, a bad blow to an already-strained budget, will make it impossible for the county to buy a $100,000 winch truck needed to pull stranded vehicles off the road, said county commissioner Rod Cleveland.

Just think how much worse the blizzard would have been had out-of-control, disaffected, carbon-footprint making global-warming deniers not kept temperatures as high as they did with their iconoclastic, self-absorbed, inconsiderate planet-destroying ways.

And imagine what the cost of snow removal would have been had global temperatures been at their real levels. 

Keep those engines idling, people.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009

I can see it now … I can envision the Dancing Obamacrats explaining to the American people how this administration is proving that it is, indeed, the most open and transparent in this nation’s history. I can hear the leftist phlegm gurglers tell us how it is this President who has broken down the barriers that have separated the common citizen from the seats of power. This will be the most accountable administration ever, they told us. This will be the most open government we have ever seen, they said.

But is this what Barack Obama meant by a more open government?

Declassifying hundreds of millions of pages of Cold War-era documents? Reversing a national security decision made by George W. Bush? Figuring out how to keep more documents from being labeled “classified” in the future?

This is the transparency he spoke of?

The exposing of national secrets from other administrations?

From the Associated Press via CBS News:

President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered the federal government to rethink how it protects the nation’s secrets, in a move that was expected to declassify more than 400 million pages of Cold War-era documents and curb the number of government records hidden from the public.

Among the changes is a requirement that every record be released eventually and that federal agencies review how and why they mark documents classified or deny the release of historical records. A National Declassification Center at the National Archives will be established to assist them and help clear a backlog of the Cold War records by Dec. 31, 2013.

Obama also reversed a decision by President George W. Bush that had allowed the intelligence community to block the release of a specific document, even if an interagency panel decided the information wouldn’t harm national security.

Advocates for a more open government are cautiously cheering the move.

In the spirit of openness, I suppose Mr. Obama’s college records will finally be made public at some point.

And so, the new era of open government and unprecedented accountability is upon us … Astronomical spending bills sped through Congress without scrutiny; Backroom deals, midnight votes and Christmas Eve rush jobs on unread, unposted legislation; Behind-closed-doors buy outs and pay offs … (feel free to add your own).

It’s good to know we’ve made it.

Pot, meet kettle.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009

I'm the President of the United States. See how I can bow?

If ever a President looked and sounded as detached, disconnected and disinterested in the events of the day as Barack Obama, I’m not aware of it. Jimmy Carter, for instance, never behaved as if the things he had to contend with were an annoyance, as Barack Obama does. He was simply an extraordinarily incompetent man who made appalling decisions. (And an anti-Semite to boot).

Bill Clinton, too, never made it seem like everything on his plate was as much of an inconvenience as Bammy does. While Slick Willie could charm the trousers off his frothing admirers, President Obama famously dismisses things in that eye-rolling, I’m-far-too-superior-for-this-kind-of-crap way that has become all too familiar. Obama always looks like he’d rather be talking about himself or nibbling on a waffle than tending to the real business of America.

For example, it was quite nice of the President to find the time, before hitting the links, to denounce the recent violence in Iran. For that, he gets a “credit where credit is due” sticker for his notebook. But he looked as if he had a thumbtack poking him in the roof of his mouth, or that he was wearing an over-starched pair of shorts. His apathy – body language, tone and overall demeanor – was as conspicuous as a piece of breakfast potato caught in Michael Moore’s beard. He didn’t even bother to wear a tie, looking as if he hastily grabbed the shirt Michelle had thrown over the top of the chair before he hit the podium.

Two days ago, in his initial statement after the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Barack Obama was as weak and pathetic as he has been at any time during his presidency. His response was, to say the least, frail and bungled; and in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that was essentially a success until the very last moment, seeing and hearing the leader of the free world sound as if the keystone cops wrote his remarks was feebleness at its finest. Within a half-hour of saying how “we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” he was teeing off at the Luana Hills Country Club.

Obama called the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack an “isolated incident.” His Homeland Security Chief said the “system worked.” Not once in his response did the President have the courage to identify radical Islam as the enemy. Never did the President use the word “terrorist.” Never did he summon the strength or show the necessary leadership in defining the evil that threatens America, as Ronald Reagan did when he called the “evil empire” exactly what it was.

These things matter.

It is simply not possible to develop a strategy against the enemy if one is not willing to identify it and understand it.

Oh yeah … yesterday, the President tried again, making another statement regarding the terror plot. Call it, “take two.” It was better than his first performance, but nothing more than a slice of “too little, too late.”

Leadership, thy name is Obama.

William McGurn, in a column published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, called Obama Puts the Dis in Dissonance,” writes:

Here’s a timely New Year’s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: “When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president’s arsenal is a White House photo-op.”

The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”

In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?

For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions … With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?

All of that overseas apologizing for America has had an effect. Each and every bow to a foreign head of state (e.g., the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan) has had an impact. All of that coddling of America’s enemies does matter. All of the nose-thumbing at friends and allies does make a difference.

The world does pay attention.

These are the snapshots of Obama’s first year that will be forever burned in the brains of people across the globe, friends and enemies alike.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Islam, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009

“It’s all mine.”


This one’s for my wife. However, as a dog lover, I concede that it is a cute pic.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

Indeed, this is sad.

I’m not suggesting that anyone in the mainstream media would ever claim that it is in any way acceptable to blow up nearly three-hundred innocents in an airplane with a crotch bomb. I’m not saying that Western journalists would ever condone stuffing one’s shorts with a groin blaster for the purposes of detonating it on a commercial aircraft. After all, even those who live left of center have to acknowledge that a terrorist is a terrorist, right? (Unless, of course, he is a freedom fighter, a Muslim holy warrior, or a jihadist). There are some, however, who may not be so quick to refer to the “Ding-A-Ling-Bomber” as the cold-blooded killer he is without trying to understand what drove him to commit the terrorist act he was about 85% successful in executing on Christmas Day.

You see, in the minds of those charged with reporting the news, it’s too simplistic – too monolithic – to suggest that Islam played the prominent role in this man’s evil deed.

It’s a dangerous trend. Americans are guaranteed to hear words like “alleged” and “suspected” long before they hear “terrorist.”

Think back to the Fort Hood terror attack. 

Recall how everything other than Islam was bandied about as the possible motivation behind the murder of thirteen innocents.

It’s no different this time.

It could have been anything that drove Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to his radical undertaking on Flight 253 four days ago.

Was he lonely, perhaps? Could this have been the trigger?

Jon Gambrell of the Associated Press says it appears that way:

Internet postings purportedly written by a Nigerian charged with trying to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day suggest a fervently religious and lonely young man who fantasized about becoming a Muslim holy warrior.

Throughout more than 300 posts, a user named “Farouk1986” reflects on a growing alienation from his family, his shame over sexual urges and his hopes that a “great jihad” will take place across the world.

Those posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.

Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.

After reading that, I can’t help but blame the non-Islamic portion of the planet for what Abdulmutallab did .

After all, it takes a village to build a terrorist.

Why couldn’t someone – anyone – take time out of his or her busy life to simply hear him? I’m sure he was a great guy otherwise. (Where’s Dr. Phil when you need him?)

If only there were more licensed therapists assigned to terror cells, perhaps through a central planning office, people like Abdulmutallab wouldn’t have felt so isolated, so alone, so prone to mass murdering people on a plane with an underwear bomb.

People think it’s all virgins and salvation, but it’s no picnic being a terrorist.

In another posting, Farouk1986 describes how alone he feels and acknowledges feeling lust, chastising himself for not lowering his gaze around unveiled women. At another point, he warns how “the hair of a woman can easily arouse a man.” He writes that he was considering getting married at 18, as his family “could help me financially.” Abdulmutallab’s father is a prominent Nigerian banker, but nothing apparently came of his marriage wishes.

No wonder he brought an underpants blaster onto an America-bound airplane. It all makes sense now.


I need to stop being so amazed at the level of inanity that exists in so many of the things I read.

Honestly, why in hell is this AP story necessary?

What is its purpose?

To make human excrement more palatable? To take us on a fascinating journey into the mind of a murderous thug? To tug on our heart strings?

And where is the word “terrorist” in this story?

Just asking.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

CNN's Rick Sanchez

From the “If I Say It Enough, It Will Magically Become True” file …

Perhaps more germane than the age-old question, “How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie pop?” is the ever-perplexing, “How many times does one have to say something before it becomes true?”

Admittedly, it isn’t easy adding ingredients to the stew of conventional wisdom, but once they hit the pot, it is nearly impossible to flush them out.

These days, a compliant media complex is essential in giving credence to falsehoods, frauds and other fairy tales. (See “Global Warming.”)

Mike Bates at NewsBusters reports on a delicious quote from CNN’s Rick Sanchez illustrating this point. Sanchez was speaking with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs, about terrorism.

Nasr was commenting on how much of a “hot zone” the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia is. She talked about how the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 was a response to what terrorists believe is ongoing United States assistance to the Yemeni government in fighting Al Qaeda and the Houthis.

Rich Sanchez, in his most matter-of-fact demeanor, seized the opportunity to reinforce his “article of faith”:

SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I’m trying to make, Octavia.

The terrorists weren’t in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.

So, the fact that we are now seemingly or the U.S. government seemingly now is putting an emphasis on there and that some of these folks are mad at us for putting an emphasis there, I can’t help but see that finally as the United States maybe going militarily in the right direction in this war on terror.

NASR: You’re right about al Qaeda being everywhere, Rick. It’s very true.

Let’s think about what Sanchez is saying here. (It is the default position of the vast majority of the mainstream media).

His claim is the nation of Iraq, headed by the murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, was essentially a terrorist-free zone until the United States came along. Terrorism existed in every corner of the world except Iraq. Hussein was minding his own business, bothering no one, until the war mongers from the West swooped in to turn that nation into a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq was a wonderland of fuzzy bunnies, swaying daisies and frolicking kittens until Uncle Sam’s baby-killing machine came a-callin’. If not for the United States, the nation of Iraq would have been free to pursue a life of peace and religious fulfillment.

The problem with the Sanchez argument is … there is not a stitch of evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was not a terrorist state. The evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was a steadfast supporter of terrorist activity and a protector of terrorist groups.

Bates quotes from the Clinton State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999 report:

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front(ALF), and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

Let’s not forget every Democrat who went on record declaring Hussein’s Iraq as a genuine threat:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

The invasion happened because following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Iraq was considered, at the time, by almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle, to be the greatest threat to national security as well as to peace in the Middle East and around the world. There is simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein was linked to a host of terrorist organizations. His nation was an undeniable sponsor of terrorism. How could any of that be ignored?

This is not to say that he or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No one has ever made such a claim. It was never the position of the Bush administration. But this was a country that violated seventeen UN resolutions. It was a country that had used weapons of mass destruction before. It was a country that repeatedly fired upon American military aircraft. It was a country that had already harbored known terrorists. On those grounds alone, an attack was completely justified.

Think of all things that didn’t work up to that point (the crown jewels of the liberal foreign policy playbook): negotiations, no-fly zones, UN sanctions, pat-a-cake, etc.

The United States no longer had the luxury of simply reacting to Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a nation deemed by both Republicans and Democrats to be a genuine threat – and rightly so. President Bush could not just sit idly by and wait. He warned Hussein. He gave Hussein opportunity after opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions. Hussein scoffed. America took action.

No Commander-In-Chief worth his weight in gold, with his nation at war, presented with the very same intelligence and evidence President Bush was, could do nothing.

President Bush was smart enough to realize that “safe haven” was not just an Afghani phenomenon.

Six years later, our success in Iraq has, indeed, made America safer.

(H/T to Weasel Zippers)

wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, Iraq, Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

Frum = dumb?

On Christmas Day, while most Americans were celebrating the holiday with their loved ones, columnist David Frum – so-called conservative – had an article published at The Week Online that probably would have served him better had it gone unnoticed. It was his attempt to explain why Obamacare is, in fact, constitutional, despite assertions by some Republicans (Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign, specifically) that it is not.

I derive no great pleasure in pointing out how embarrassing Frum is on this issue, or how stupid he makes himself sound. I get no kick out of saying how ill-informed and weak this article is, or how laughable he makes himself out to be in the name of “conservatism.” It doesn’t do my heart any good to highlight his intellectual vapidity.

Frankly, I happen to believe passage of this bill would be unconstitutional, but that is not my over-arching point here. Rather, this is about the carelessness of Frum’s assertions and his egregious misstating of facts. This is about an opinion piece from a so-called “conservative” perspective so badly done, it would almost have to be a parody. It’s about a poorly constructed, terribly presented, ill-conceived joke of an article coming from someone who should have stayed away from his word processor last week.

I’ll focus on two small passages.

Frum writes:

DeMint’s and Ensign’s argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution speaks only of a Supreme Court, Congress has no power to create lower federal courts. Since the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.

To begin with, the Constitution does grant Congress the power to create lower federal courts – in the plainest of English (Article III, Section I):

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

This is one of those “gotcha” moments that is so obvious, so conspicuous, so void of any challenge in counter-arguing his allegation, that it isn’t even fun to take the time to point it out.

Not exactly hidden in the eminations and penumbras, is it?

As far as the Constitution not mentioning a national bank, Frum is absolutely right. In fact, Thomas Jefferson took what would today be called the “strict constructionist’s” position in opposing Alexander Hamilton’s initiative of establishing the First Bank of the United States. Hamilton argued that the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the Constitution authorized the federal government to execute already existing powers enumerated in the Constitution – taxation, in this case – and thus, allowed for the establishment of the bank (later upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland –1819).

But what Constitutional passage authorizes the federal government to compel its citizens to purchase health insurance?

What already enumerated power grants the federal government such authority?

Where in the Constitution can it even be suggested that Congress shall have the power (enumerated or implied) to force citizens to purchase anything?

A fair question, no?

And as far as Frum’s “ancient theory of enumerated powers” remark is concerned, I must ask … is it possible for one person to be as blatantly wrong as he is arrogant? Does the word “stupid” fit?

Did Frum put any thought into his piece at all?

While no one can deny that a “limited powers” argument – at least in terms of the Framers’ interpretation – is a difficult one to make in today’s day and age of endless entitlements and endless bureacracy, how can he contend with a straight face that enumerated powers are an “ancient theory?”

Are there no boundaries then on what Congress may do? Is there no whim or agenda beyond restraint?

If Congress can, essentially, do whatever it damn well pleases, as Frum’s argument seems to suggest – even under the authority of the “Necessary and Proper Clause”  – what would be the point of acknowledging enumerated powers to begin with?

Why recognizee them at all? Why not just make it up as they go along?

Mr. Frum seems to believe that today’s conservative should just roll over and concede that ever-expanding government is a foregone conclusion. It’s just a matter of pushing back a little every now and then to keep things honest. Those antiquated “limited government” principles are quaint and all, but they have no relevance today.

He also writes:

The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That’s what Medicare does. The difference now is that everyone will be required to buy a private plan to cover them up to age 65 in addition to the government-run plan they are compelled to buy to cover them after 65.

This may be the most embarrassing paragraph of all.

Let’s be clear … Medicare is a tax. American citizens who earn income via wages are required to pay this tax. The money collected from this tax is intended to be returned in the form of government benefits (i.e., Medicare). That’s how it is set up to function. Simple really.

ObamaCare, by contrast, makes it illegal not to purchase a free-market good from a private entity. It literally requires one to buy something or else be punished. The fines from such a punishment would then be collected as a tax. Jail time is a possibility, too.

How in the world is that constitutional?

Congress has never mandated that its citizens purchase anything at any time.

There is no precedent.

Recall that President Franklin Roosevelt tried to initially peddle Social Security as a compulsory insurance plan. It didn’t fly. Eventually, it was sold as a mandatory tax.

But even Alexander Hamilton did not believe that Congress’ charge to “provide for the … general welfare” gave it the power to do as it saw fit. He actually sounded much like Jefferson and Madison on the matter when authoring his Federalist essays. While he believed the First Bank of the United States was a constitutional venture because it was necessary in the federal government’s function to “collect taxes” as enumerated in Article I, Section VIII, he still took a very narrow view of providing for the “general welfare” – far different than today’s big-government, liberty-crushing Obamacrats see it.

In arguing against the Bill of Rights in Federalist 84, for example, Hamilton wrote:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

These sound like the opinions of a man who would, today, be called a “strict constructionist” – even though he was a Federalist (the opposition party of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans).

To Frum, the thoughts and interpretations of the “ancient ones” – those who who were actually there at the Constitution’s creation – have little relevance today.

Kind of like Frum in the arena of ideas.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, health care, RINO, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

It’s always an adventure of sorts to try and make some semblance of sense out of liberal thinking. Whether one finds himself (or herself) genuinely fascinated at the childlike cognitions that underlie liberal idealism, or aggravated at the disgustingly simplistic – and often destructive – “stage-one” notions that define modern liberal thought, it is often too tedious and far too bumper-stickery to be considered seriously substantive.

Unfortunately for this country and lovers of liberty, Democrats are in power.

Therefore, modern liberal thought must be taken seriously … for now.

Liberals, for instance, were dead wrong about the War in Iraq – on every level. From the moment they decided it was politically expedient for them to be opposed to it, the wrong side of history was theirs for the keeping – a trend for libs. Despite the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting in favor of military action against Iraq, opposition to the war became their “default” position once the invasion began. (Remember, Dems weren’t opposed to Bush because of the war. They were against the war because of Bush).

Indeed, libs still nosh on the dusty nuggets that fill up their ever-stale snack platters, blaming “Bush’s War” on everything from starving children in America’s inner cities to post nasal drip.

The fact is, Democrats don’t want to remember how the post-9/11 climate in America demanded a nation as terrorist-friendly as Iraq – with a ruthless dictator constantly violating Gulf War resolutions and firing on American war planes – be taken down for repeated failures to comply to the terms of those resolutions. To this day, Dems call the Iraqi War pointless, saying Bush should never have gone in. But had a terrorist attack on America been planned from the ever-accomodating confines of Hussein’s Iraq – or if training camps for terrorists had been allowed to thrive there (like under the Taliban in Afghanistan) – given the intelligence at the time, President Bush would have been hung from the village square for doing nothing – and rightfully so.

It’s likely “Bush’s War” will continue to be the beacon of blame for every malady that will befall America in the foreseeable future. One won’t be able to swing a dead mongoose without hitting an Obamacrat finding some way to blame the current state of affairs on “Bush’s War.” From unemployment to terrorist threats, from migraine headaches to anal fissures, it will all be Bush’s fault.

It’s how they think.

It’s their “default” position.

Take, for example, this commentary from Deputy White House Press Secretary, Bill Burton, traveling with the President in Hawaii, as he “recapped” the Sunday talk shows:

Robert Gibbs and Secretary Napolitano made clear that we are pressing ahead with securing our nation against threats and our aggressive posture in the war with al Qaeda. We are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us, and have dramatically increased our resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan where those terrorists are.

Right on cue – the obligatory Iraq refrence.

So, if I am to understand … it was the Iraq War that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day? America’s eye was “off the ball” because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? Conditions were such that if there was no invasion of Iraq, Abdulmutallab would never have been able to board that plane with explosive materials?

Yeah, okay.

But it gets better.

On Sunday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.” And yet, both she and Gibbs announced that the President has asked for all procedures and policies at the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security be reviewed. Bush-era policies will, in effect, need to be dissected with a fine-tooth comb … but somehow, the system worked?

How could it have worked when it took passengers and members of the flight crew to thwart the attempted attack? And if it really did work, why the need to suddenly “review” everything?

The terrorist Abdulmutallab got on the plane, didn’t he? What worked exactly?

What are these people talking about?

Do they ever pull their heads out long enough to observe the happenings of the real world?

Again, note the instinct to laud themselves and blame everyone else. “It worked” because we are living in the Messianic Age. Whatever went wrong must be the fault of the other guy – the previous guy. Otherwise, all went quite well … even though a review of Bush-era implementations will be necessary … even though it worked … even though it will have to be looked at … even though it went like clockwork … blah, blah, blah..

Napolitano was forced to do an about-face this morning, admitting that after further review of the painfully obvious, the system actually did not work, saying, “”Here, clearly, something went awry. We want to fix that problem.”

Nothing escapes her.

Meanwhile, expect the “Blame Bush” brigades to keep it up. 

As [President Obama] said in West Point, we must put aside petty politics and recapture the unity that we had after 9/11.

Enough with the “unity” blather, okay? It is this administration that, at every turn, finds some way to place the blame for every blight and blemish on George W. Bush. No matter what the issue is, poor poor Obama constantly reminds the American people that he has been saddled with a host of inherited complications, so extensive and so problematic, that he may or may not be able to rectify them.


That’s how you get a B+. (Or an “A,” if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger looking in).

wordpress statistics


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

As I attempt to morph into a post-Christmas blogging mind set, and veer away momentarily from the political, I am curious if there are any less than serious Christmastime mishaps anyone would like to share? Any retail store nightmares? Goofy little Yuletide anecdotes? Traveling disaster stories?

From the “Why Don’t You Ever Share Anything From Your Personal Life” file … I thought I’d share my classic Christmas debacle from a year ago – a tale worth revisiting, if only to be used as a vehicle to pine for the days when good customer service was standard, and not an “art form.”

I won’t mention the name of the chain store involved in this story. Rest assured, however, it is a well-known national retail outlet I’d be willing to wager a vital body appendage that practically everyone has been to at some point.

Anyway, I purchased two items through this unnamed chain store’s web site – let’s call them “Pest Pie,” for the sake of this discussion – on December 21st using a debit card. These items were meant as gifts for my twin teenage daughters  (both juniors in high school at the time).

The method of delivery I chose for these gifts – two mini portable HP notebooks that can fit in the palm of your hand – was “store pick up” – a good choice, I thought, because it would, first of all, save me money on shipping charges. Second, it would guarantee the gifts to be in hand by Christmas.

It didn’t take long – maybe a matter of a few minutes – before my debit card had been sucked of the money it cost to buy these two items. Indeed, I received a confirmation e-mail that the two notebooks were, in fact, in stock at my local “Pest Pie” store, waiting to be picked up. The receipts that came via e-mail had actual, honest-to-goodness, bona-fide, real-life confirmation numbers for each item.

The next morning, with a Burl Ives tune in my head, a steaming debit card in my pocket, and the feeling of a guardian angel hanging over my shoulder (because I found a parking space within one half-mile of the store’s entrance), I frolicked into “Pest Pie,” with receipts in hand and confirmation numbers at the ready.

After giving the young man at the pickup window my driver’s license, the debit card used to make the purchase, and printed receipts, I waited.

And waited.

And waited.

Seventeen thousand people came and went to that little pickup window while I stood there waiting.

And waiting.

Finally, with the rings around my trunk growing exponentially, and the moss covering the tops of my feet, the clearly-disinterested young man came back to me and spoke those fateful words that send chills down the spine of even the most hardened men – “There’s a problem with your order, sir.”


Happy Employee: “The items you purchased are missing.”

Me: “Excuse me? Missing?”

Happy Employee: “Yes, sir. They’ve gone missing. We cannot locate them.”

Me: “But I have confirmation numbers.”

Happy Employee: “Yes, sir. But the items aren’t here.”

Me: “But the e-mail said they were here.”

Happy Employee: “I know. They’re missing now.”

Visions of a famous episode of Seinfeld came roaring into my head – the one where Jerry is wanting to rent a car, and despite having the reservation in hand, he discovers there are no cars to be had.

Car Rental Gal: “Well, I’m sorry we have no midsize available at the moment.”

Seinfeld: “I don’t understand. I made a reservation. Do you have my reservation?’

Car Rental Gal: “Yes. We do. Unfortunately, we ran out of cars.”

Seinfeld: “But the reservation keeps the car here. That’s why you have the reservation.”

Car Rental Gal: “I know why we have reservations.”

Seinfeld: “I don’t think you do. If you did, I’d have a car. You see, you know how to take the reservation. You just don’t know how to hold the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation – the holding.”

As I tried to wrap my brain around the idea that these items I paid for were somehow “missing” – and with the young “Pest Pie” representative in front of me texting away to his heart’s delight to who knows whom – I decided that with only three days remaining before the holiday, I would ask for the money to be credited back to my debit card immediately so I could make other arrangements for the twins’ presents. I was told that I would need to call the customer service number and cancel the order. Once that was done, I could get the immediate credit.

So I made the call.

Right there in the store.

If I tried to accurately depict how ridiculous I must have looked making this phone call, right in the middle of “Pest Pie,” trying to avoid being crushed by holiday shoppers near the front doors (so I could get phone service), I couldn’t do it justice. It, too, was something out of a Seinfeld episode because I simply couldn’t hear a single word the woman on the other end of the line was saying. She was, in Seinfeldian-speak, a “low talker” – and I wasn’t about to hang up and try again. I had already waited on hold seventeen minutes.  

So there I was, standing in the middle of the “Pest Pie” lobby, with throngs of irritable Christmas shoppers teeming past me, one finger buried in my free ear to block out noise while I frantically tried to make out what this useless customer service rep was mumbling. Within minutes, I’m yelling into the phone at the mute-mouthed telephone rep (as if that would make me hear her any better), “I’m sorry?! Can you say that again? What?! What?! You want the last four digits of what????”

I’m sure there has to be a security tape somewhere of a bouncing idiot with a finger in his ear, screaming into a cell phone making the rounds of “Pest Pie” employee break rooms everywhere.

Eventually, the low-taking woman – who was either named Jennifer or Window Slat – was yelling back at me so that I could hear her.

When it was over, I went home and bothered no one for the rest of the day.

The next morning, I checked my account online and found (predictably) that my card had not been credited for the purchase amount of two mini notebooks.

I did, however, receive another e-mail confirming my original order, with a whole new set of confirmation numbers. I was charged again for two HP mini notebooks and was told they were in stock, ready for pickup at “Pest Pie.”

I had now paid for four of these things, and had none to show for it.

Please understand that I am rich by no means (except maybe to Barack Obama). As I do every year, I started saving for the holidays just before baseball season started. I always use that a reminder to start stashing cash for the holidays. Indeed, I did have enough money in that account to cover the cost of two additional HP mini notebooks. However, that money was reserved for other things – like presents for other people … and msicellaneous incidentals like food and water for us, that we might eat and sustain life.

Naturally, I called the good folks at “Pest Pie,” and told them my little story – this after having to choose “english” as my main-menu telehone language not once, but twice, and waiting on hold for twenty-three minutes.

Would you believe me if I said I didn’t even receive an “I’m sorry, sir,” or a “We apologize for any inconvenience,” or anything remotely similar to a smidgen of human decency?

I bet you would.

So, the only thing I could do – seeing as I had already purchased accessories for the mini notebooks – is try and get enough money together to purchase them from elsewhere –  yet again – so I’d have them in time for Christmas, i.e, borrow from someone or sell a kidney, and then pay back that money with the refund cash I’m supposed to get from “Pest Pie” the moment it is credited to my account.

It wasn’t easy, but as it turns out, I did purchase the gifts for my girls – and they absolutely loved them.

Of course, it took two weeks for any money credited to my account – which translates to “three-to-five business days” in modern customer service-speak.


I wonder if that’s the first time anyone ever had to pay for six computers just to get two.

Posted in Everything Else, holiday greetings, Personal | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

It's either an evironmentally friendly couch delivery or a luxury rickshaw.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 27, 2009

That’s what the cones and yellow tape were for?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 26, 2009

Not that this necessarily has anything whatsoever to do with religion. It could be that he had a nasty headache. Maybe he was suffering from painful rectal itch. Perhaps a particularly aggressive strain of head lice was causing him a great deal of discomfort. It could be his chick told him that she just wanted to be friends. Who knows what possibilities will be explored by the ever-vigilant mainstream media as they report on Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man who yesterday brought “a powdery substance” onto a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight and tried to ignite it.

To be perfectly fair, yesterday’s incident is being called “an attempted terrorist attack” by Washington lawmakers and the White House.

Wonders never cease.

From Fox News:

An airline passenger, who claimed to have ties to Al Qaeda, was subdued Friday after he tried to ignite a powdery substance just before landing in Detroit, sources told FOX News.

Reflecting the severity of the incident, a number of lawmakers were tracked down on Christmas Day to be briefed on the incident. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, were among them.

Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released a written statement questioning how the passenger was allowed on board and what the TSA can do to prevent such an incident from reoccurring.

It should be noted that the concerns of the entire nation were put to rest when it was announced that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller – Democrat – Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, will hold some hearings next month.

(That”ll show those powder igniters!)

Meanwhile, Congressman Peter King from New York says Mutallab was on a terrorist connections list.

From The Hill:

The suspect in an alleged attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas was on a list “indicating significant terrorist connections,” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Friday.

King, the top Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee, described the suspect in the attempted bombing of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit as a 23-year-old Nigerian national with potential ties to al-Qaeda.

“He is a 23 year old Nigerian who is also – it’s been confirmed to me – while he was not on a no fly list, his name was on a list for having terrorist connections,” King said during an interview Christmas evening on CNN.

Keep in mind that just four days ago, the always-aggravating and never-interesting Congressman from Pennsylvania, John Murtha, said that he isn’t convinced that Al-Qaeda is a threat to this country.

An Obama administration official went on to say that he doesn’t believe yesterday’s incident was part of a “broader effort.”

Well, that’s a relief.

Thank God it isn’t a broader effort.

That would be … well, terrifying.

It’s much more reassuring – and far less menacing – when terrorist attacks occur as a continuous series of non-related “independent” incidents,  perpetrated by individuals or small groups tied together only by their evil perceptions of the tenets of one religion.

One has to wonder how many “individual” incidents have to occur before the brainpans who run things in Washington are willing to call the murderous actions of all islamo-fascists hell-bent on our destruction part of a “broader effort.”


wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 26, 2009

It's just too good to be true

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 25, 2009

Posted in holiday greetings | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 25, 2009


Posted in holiday greetings | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 24, 2009

When Harry met Nancy

The function of a journalist long ago metastasized from being one that reports what is happening in as objective a manner as possible to one who fancies himself (or herself) a kind of modern day crusader, desirous of righting the wrongs around them, revealing injustices, and saving the planet from second-hand smoke, greenhouse gases, God, and conservatives (quite possibly in that order).

Interesting is how the glossy veneer of the mainstream media’s troubling charade continues to remain uncompromised – amongst themselves. Their facade of impartiality is still foisted onto the American people daily, but because they exist primarily within their own forest, they almost always miss the trees. They distinguish themselves as straight down the middle, detached from affiliation, objective purveyors of whatever they deem to be news, ready to involuntary activate the “neutral” switch when the situation calls for it. (Recall the famous line attributed to theater critic Pauline Kael in 1972 after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory: “How could Nixon have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Whether the quote is apocryphal or not is irrelevant, because the sentiment, as it pertains to the relationship between the main stream media and the rest of the country, is spot on). Media bias is not self-evident primarily because the mainstreamers find themselves in a fraternity that is overwhelmingly liberal (i.e., normal).

The concept of mainstream media objectivity is certainly pleasant enough – much like calorie-free milk chocolate or world peace – but not very realistic.

Some can adhere to it.

Most cannot.

Think of how the mainstream media would be covering this wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am health bill that passed the Senate earlier today if Republicans were in charge. Try and imagine the level of outrage and indignation that would be leveled at GOPers had a bunch of sweetheart deals been brokered for Republican pet projects in order to get this unread, unreviewed, two-thousand page legislative atrocity passed. How many times do you think the word “tyranny” would have been tossed about by the punditocracy? How often would the American people be hearing about “the least transparent administration in history” or the “cloak and dagger” way the President is running his ship? Would the media stand for it? Or bend over for it?

Now that reconcilliation is next on the docket, how, pray tell, would the media handle a not too far-fetched scenario being suggested by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, where the tag-team tandem of Pelosi and Reid all but thumb their noses at the process of trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference, sidestepping protocol, tradition and accountability? How would the mainstream media report on GOP attempts to breach every code of conduct, foregoing the normal process of coming up with a compromise between the two houses, so that a bill could be rushed through to passage without the opportunity for the American people to know what’s in it?

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes:

Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.

Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn’t require the House to swallow the Senate’s bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. “We have to defer to the bigger picture,” explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children’s health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate’s version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been “cut off at the knees” but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way — without appointing an actual conference.

Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were “ping-ponged” — i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. “We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue,” said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.

But serious dialogue isn’t what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a “ping-pong” game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.

Now that the Democrats have got their Senate bill passed, just in time for turkey and mistletoe, be prepared for a cavalcade of lies about how “the American people want this change,” and “Last November, the American people chose to move in a new direction,” and whatever else they’ll say to stir the stomach acids of a bamboozled American public. Brace yourself for a whole lot of nauseating “blah, blah, blah” and gut-churning “yada, yada, yada.” Expect to hear the word “historic” a few thousand times, and waist-deep-in-the-fertilizer deceptions about how the deficit will actually be lowered thanks to the eventual passage of this disastrous bill into law. Get ready for dancing Democrats to find their way to every camera within spitting distance, sporting that look of sweet victory, claiming that the American people are the real winners. (Barf bag manufacturers might make a killing over the next few days).

It will be as disgusting a display as one could imagine – donkey faces all aglow in the fleeting hours before Christmas as they move that much closer to grabbing 16% of the American economy and crushing our liberties.

Merry Christmas, indeed.

There isn’t a device in all the world capable of measuring how utterly unfathomable and unAmerican Congress’ actions have been up to this point in getting this bill passed.

It is stunning.

Absolutely stunning.

The most transparent administration in history?

Horse crap.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Harry Reid, health care, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 24, 2009



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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009

Building off my piece earlier today “Sweetheart Dealin’ Frauds” is the story of the Democrat shoot-down of Senator Mike Johanns – the other Senator from Nebraska. Yesterday, Senator Johanns asked that the Senate “strike the special carve-outs from the Senate health care bill” (i.e., get rid of the sweetheart deals).

There was a higher probability of seeing Hillary Clinton in the Penny’s catalogue modeling the latest in thong wear.

Nothing moves faster than Democrat lips saying “no” when their bribes comes under threat from pork smashers.

Said Senator Johanns:

There should be no special deals, no carve-outs for anyone in this health care bill; not for states, not for insurance companies, not for individual senators.

All of the special deals should be removed. If the bill cannot pass without carve-outs, what further evidence is needed that it is bad policy? No senator should vote for the final cloture vote until all of the carve-outs and special deals are removed.

Nebraskans don’t want a special deal, they want good policy. They don’t believe the Federal Government is the answer to every problem and they don’t like backroom deals.

This was precisely the point of my article earlier today.

These earmark whores couldn’t care less what is or isn’t fiscally sound for this country. They haven’t invested an inkling of critical thought into the matter of deteriorating quality of care. They’re not interested in the unprecedented financial discord that lies ahead for the country.

What else is needed to convince those who still support ReidCare that the bill is no good? What more does one need than to watch Senators fall in line only after they are bribed to do so?

Here are some of the goodies Senator Johanns was hoping to have cut out of the bill:

– Eliminating or reducing the Medicaid unfunded mandate on Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts (starting on page 96, line 9)

– Exempting certain health insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan from taxes and fees (starting on page 367, line 6)

– Providing automatic Medicare coverage for anyone living in Libby, Montana (starting on page 194 – section 10323)

– Earmarking $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” reportedly in Connecticut (starting on page 328)

– Giving special treatment to Hawaii’s Disproportionate Share Hospitals (starting on page 101, line 6)

– Boosting reimbursement rates for certain hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut (starting on page 174 – section 10317)

– Mandating special treatment for hospitals in “Frontier” States like Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming (starting on page 208 — Sec 10324)

Dems told him to take a walk.

Most of them ought to be home just in time for Christmas Eve pumpkin pie.

And what is the upshot of all of this, if there is one? Dennis Prager said it on his radio program today – that it affords Americans the opportunity to really see leftism in action.

The compassion, the hope, the promise of modern liberalism sure sounds peachy in the brochure, but once the Left is in power, those latent totalitarian tendencies bubble up to the surface.

It’s inherent.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Political Corruption, politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009

Senator Dodd - $100 million for a hospital

There is no question in my mind that many of the sixty Senators who will be voting to pass this monstrosity of a health care reform bill – and thus, voting to strip Americans of their liberty – genuinely do believe that what they’re doing is good for America. I have no doubt that a sizeable percentage of Senate Dems actually believe in their hearts – where all liberal policy-making emanates – that the government takeover of 16% of the American economy is a positive thing. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that anyone with a reasonable mind could actually look at this bill and feel good about its potential to live up to the fairy-tales Dems are peddling, but there are many who genuinely do. 

Some of them get in front of cameras and burble about how critical it is to make insurance more affordable for everyone. Some truly subscribe to the notion that only government is capable of such a thing. Others cackle about the moral imperative in passing it – how it’s the right thing to do. Still others ramble on about this bill’s fiscal soundness and how deficits will actually be lowered over a period of years, blah, blah, blah. 

Senator Nelson - Everyone else pays for Medicaid

Profoundly misguided as this group of Senators is – and as dangerous to this country as they are – these people are not the truly despicable ones. Indeed, there can be no doubt that passage of this who-did-it-and-ran bill would be disgraceful and immeasurably damaging to this nation. But those who really believe this unprecedented expansion of government and liberty-eroding power play will work are not nearly as contemptible as those who allowed their vote to be bought.  

Two questions I used to regularly ask of man-made global warming zealots was: If the world was, in fact, warming, and it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human activity had absolutely no role in it whatsoever, would it still matter to you? And if, indeed, rising temperatures are as much of a threat to the planet’s well-being as you claim, does it matter what’s causing it? 

Indeed, the political game is played by brokering deals, shoveling promises, and bribing the fence-sitters. No can deny that. 

Mary Landrieu from Louisiana scored $300 million for her state. 

Ben Nelson from Nebraska sold out the unborn and made the other forty-nine states foot his state’s Medicaid bills. 

Senator Landrieu - $300 million for Louisiana

Chris Dodd from Connecticut secured $100 million for a hospital. 

But this bill is unique in that it is set to transform forever the American economy and health care delivery system on a scale no one could have imagined even one year ago. It is slated to increase government involvement in our lives in a way that has not been seen or conceived of before. It will, for the first time, mandate that Americans purchase a specific product or else be subject to penalties. It will promise fines and even jail sentences for those who do not comply. It is a bill that has been hotfooted through the Senate – a bill that wasn’t even seen by the public until Saturday of last week – so that some arbitrary Christmas deadline can be met. It is a bill that has garnered less scrutiny and discussion time than some railroad crossing bills have, yet it will seize for the federal government nearly one fifth of the American economy. 

Two questions for all of those who were promised goodies in exchange for their vote: If it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ObamaCare would cripple this nation financially and cause the quality of health care to decline, would you then turn down the goodies promised your state? And if, indeed, America is really suffering from a health care crisis of epic proportion as you claim, why is a sweetheart deal necessary to bring you on board to fix that crisis? 

Democrats, if I may … Is doing the right thing dependant on what you can get in return? 

wordpress statistics 

Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009

Senator Lindsey Graham

Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, wrote precisely what I was thinking about South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “For once I can wholeheartedly agree with Graham.”

It does sound funny to say, I admit.

To be fair, Graham was quite good – great, in fact – in questioning Attorney General Eric Holder not too long ago about President Obama’s decision (and make no mistake about it, it was Obama’s decision) to try the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in civilian court.

Obviously, it isn’t unheard of that Graham would say something that makes sense. It just doesn’t happen as often as it should.

For instance, on Sunday, he was definitely on his game when he said that the agreements reached with various Senators leading up to the passage of Harry Reid’s  “manager’s amendment” was the result of “seedy Chicago politics.”

Spot on.

Today, Graham was even better.

Earlier, Graham said that the deal given to the State of Nebraska in exchange for Ben Nelson’s support of ObamaCare (or ReidCare, if you prefer) may be Constitutionally unsound.

Susan Jones, Senior Editor at CSN News writes:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is blasting the deal Democrats made with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) in exchange for Nelson’s vote to advance the health care bill.

In exchange for Nelson’s critical 60th vote to cut off debate early Monday morning, Sen. Harry Reid agreed that the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the tab for the planned Medicaid expansion in Nebraska – forever.

“Legally, I think other states can make a constitutional challenge,” Graham said in an appearance on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning.

Instead of negotiating in public, there was a back-room deal, Graham said. “It goes sort of like this,” Graham said, imitating Democratic leaders:

“What do you need, Ben, for this last vote? Well, I tell you what, Medicaid’s expanding under this bill for everybody in the country…Ben, what would happen if we let Nebraska expand their Medicaid enrollment and the federal government pay for it?’”

“Done!’” Graham said, imitating Ben Nelson.

Graham recited a list of things that are not fair about the Democrats’ health care bill – including the unfairness of giving a special deal to the people of Nebraska to get one senator’s vote “and not share that deal with the rest of the country.”

One can make the argument – and a damn good one – that Ben Nelson’s sweetheart buy-out does not pass the constitutional smell taste. The notion that one state should be singled out for non-emergency preferential treatment under a federal law (unlike disaster relief after a hurricane, for example) at the expense of other states might prompt some sort of constitutional challenge. In effect, the feds would be commanding other states to foot Nebraska’s bill for Medicaid. It might be enough to get some eagle-eyed constitutionalists wondering if such a thing doesn’t violate the tenth amendment. Maybe even the fourteenth.

Earlier today, on his talk radio program, Dennis Prager was speaking with Martin Gross, bestselling New York Times author of such books as “National Suicide: How Washington is Destroying the American Dream” and “The Government Racket: Washington Waste From A to Z”:

Gross: [The federal government is} now telling the states that they have to pay for Nebraska. All the Republicans have to do is have an emergency call of the Supreme Court and point out that it’s a “crisis,” and have the Court, within a week, give a decision. And the Court – unless they’re illiterate in a judicial sense – they’re going to say it’s unconstitutional to get Nebraska off the hook when you have a health care bill.

And the Republicans should do it very rapidly, get a decision, and the bill will be dead, because it is plainly unconstitutional. It violates the federal and state compacts of the Tenth Amendment.

Prager: I will pose this question to Senator Kyle tomorrow.

Gross: Good. Good. Good.

Prager: have you posed this to any Republicans in office?

Gross: This is the first time I’ve mentioned it.

Prager: With all your knowledge, you do not know of a precedent of a federal bill – a congressional bill – that isolated a state?

Gross: Never before in history. They’re giving [Louisiana Senator Mary] Landrieu the $300 billion because of the disaster in New Orleans. That might pass or it might not pass. But the Nebraska thing is a pure anti-Constitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment which specifies federal and state opportunities and obligations. You cannot take from New York and Connecticut and give it to Nebraska – not only for an emergency period – this is forever.

Another point of constitutionality could be in the fact that this bill requires people to purchase health insurance. Earlier today, Nevada Senator John Ensign said, “”I don’t believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

And while there is obviously nothing in the Constitution requiring American citizens to purchase anything, ObamaCare proponents will fall back on the old stand-by of citing the Commerce Clause as its reason for annexing 16% of the American economy.  (You knew that was coming).

What doesn’t the Commerce Clause cover in lib-world? It is the justification for everything leftocrats feel they need to be in control of for the betterment of the nation. It gets more of a workout than Tiger Woods’ wood. (Golf club, I mean).

And for those who like to use the requirement of automobile insurance as a means of validating mandatory health care, the comparison is painfully flawed. First, the main purpose of auto insurance is not – repeat not – to make sure drivers themselves are covered. It’s to make sure that other drivers are covered in the event of an accident. Second, auto insurance is only required if one chooses to drive. Third, auto insurance is not a federal issue. It is a state issue.

Assuming that a health care bill eventually does become law – after what will be, at the very minimum, a whole lot of screamin and yelling between House and Senate Dems – and these constitutional challenges do, indeed, make it to the Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear why it is absolutely necessary to elect the right people to the Presidency (literally and figuratively).

It is the Chief Executive who appoints justices to the Supreme Court.

If, for instance, the moderate John McCain would have won the election last November, and the question of this health care law’s constitutionality came before the Supreme Court with an appointee of his as David Souter’s replacement – a strict constructionist – the bill would almost certainly face the death it deserves … which it may anyway.

There is hardly a Presidential legacy more enduring than whom he appoints to the Supreme Court – except maybe that of government run health care.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009

Honestly, can someone please tell me what the hell Arnold Schwarzenegger is talking about? Does anything that comes out of his mouth actually make any sense to anyone? Does he really mean the things he says? This middle-of-the-road, moderate, squishy-in-the-center, all-friends-to-all-people thing has played itself out. It grew incredibly tedious about eight seconds into the post-Gray Davies era, and the whole movie star thing has long since become uninteresting. His brand of “republicanism” makes the old blue-blood country-club set look like a band of angry Pat Buchanans.

Almost a year into the Messianic Age, President Barack Obama gave himself a solid B+ when asked to grade his first year in office. He went on to say that if his health care reform plans had come through the way he had envisioned them, he’d have given himself an A.

Of course, that would have been entirely unnecessary. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took care of that for him.

CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart writes:

Asked to give Obama a grade as the end of the president’s first year in office approaches, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s Republican governor, gave Obama high marks.

“When it comes to effort, [Obama] should get a straight A,” Schwarzenegger told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King in an interview that aired Sunday on State of the Union.

“He’s out there with tremendous energy and he’s selling his ideas. And he has great enthusiasm there. He’s a great speaker, a great communicator.”

The rice pudding I was eating just came up through my nose.

Obama should get a “straight A” for effort?

For what exactly? Attempting to dismantle and transform the republic? For spearheading the move to bring 16% of the American economy under the thumb of bureaucrat-rich government? For sending deficits into territory that even space shuttles fear to go?

And what “tremendous energy” is he supposed to posses?

His insatiable appetite to travel abroad? (for apologies, awards, and other citizen-of-the-world pursuits).

If ever there was a President who was, all at once, as dull and dry as Mr. Chicago, I’ve not heard him – and yet Barack Obama just can’t seem to tear himself away from the spotlight.

Is he exciting? Perhaps … in that thrilling-as-jello, teleprompted, in-over-his-head baritone sort of way.

One thing is for sure … He must be seen and heard … constantly. It appears to be his mission, seeing as substance was long ago dismissed as irrelevant to him.

And to whom, exactly, is President Obama supposedly selling his ideas? You mean the health care bill that the vast majority of Americans don’t want? You mean the fraud of man-made global warming (which Arnold buys into hook, line and sinker) and cap-and-trade? You mean the guy whose approval ratings keep falling like a stone?

And maybe it’s just me … but a great communicator?

I’ll give you that he can read a cue card like no one else, but out of the box, away from the scripts needed to keep him functioning, the President Obama talks in constant place-markers – uh, uh, uh – and well-worn platitudes. He’s not said anything substantive since asking if if he could be left alone to finish his waffle.

Governor Schwarzenegger has obviously been taking his cues from the master.

Settle down, Arnie. He walks on water, just like all the other messiahs.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama-Mania, politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009

What the?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 21, 2009

Yes, yes.

I am acknowledging that at sometime after 1:00AM this morning, Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment” passed in the Senate by a vote of 60-40 – right down party lines. It is the first of three procedural votes that will need to pass before the greatest health care delivery system the world has ever known is that much closer to being destroyed. It certainly was no surprise – not since Senator Ben Nelson decided that taking a coat hangar to the unborn wasn’t quite as detestable once he found out that forty-nine other states would be paying for Medicare benefits in his home state.

It looks as though things are right on schedule for a final Christmas Eve vote.

What says transparency more than casting votes in the dead of night for a bill that will raise taxes by half a trillion smackeroos over the next decade? After all, there’s nothing like having government confiscate 16% of the economy, and in the process create a sea of red tape and crippling bureaucracy that will stand between patient and doctor while simultaneously lowering the quality of care.

Who wouldn’t want that?

Ladies and Gentleman, we are arguably witnessing the greatest example of “Just Do Something” disease ever recorded by modern man.

If you aren’t sickened, you aren’t paying attention.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Harry Reid, health care | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 21, 2009

A week ago today, I commented on remarks made by someone who is fast becoming number one on my “Dumbest Senators Since Joe Biden Left The Senate” list – Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat. You’ll recall that it was Whitehouse who, from the Senate floor, accused Republicans of voting against so-called “health care reform” to ensure a huge and humiliating defeat for President Barack Obama. (Not that the President needs the help of Republicans to suffer humiliation). In the eternally resonating chambers of Senator Whitehouse’s coffee-can mind, opposition to ObamaCare couldn’t possibly be attributable to genuine disagreement with Democrats – it can only exist because GOPers are determined to see Obama go down in flames one way or another. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with wanting what’s best for the United States.

Yesterday, Senator Whitehouse – once again from the Senate floor – ripped a page (or three) from the book of modern liberalism and illustrated why Democrat appeal is dropping like a cinder block from the Chrysler Building. This disgraceful and pathetic excuse for a United States Senator borrowed some carefully selected phrases from the well of tolerance and acceptance as he demonstrated, in no uncertain terms, why it is that modern liberalism is the great divider.

According to Whitehouse, those of us who support Senate Republicans in opposing ObamaCare are, in effect, cut from the same cloth as the Obama birther fanatics, right-wing militia types and Arayan Nation backers. We are desperate, he says, to bring this President down because We The Intolerant could not accept his ascendency to the White House. It’s not about his politics. It’s because he is black.

Kerry Picket from the Washington Times writes:

After explaining why absent GOP members who did not vote for the Department of Defense spending bill was tantamount to a “no” vote, he went on to say that Republicans and their supporters just want to “break” the momentum of President Obama.:

“Voting ‘no’ and hiding from the vote are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it. It was clear the three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.

They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.”

I approached Senator Whitehouse following his speech on the floor, and his responses to my questions were puzzling, to say the say the least. Mr. Whitehouse said he stood by his speech, but would not admit that he was accusing anyone who was against the health care bill as racist. He did reiterate that birthers are part of the group that is against the bill and are attacking president However, when I asked the Senator from Rhode Island what he meant by describing those who do not support the bill as “aryan,” he responded “No, I didn’t say that….again, pay attention to the speech.”

According to the transcript above, Mr. Whitehouse did say what he seems to be denying. Perhaps he should pay more attention to what he says on the floor.

Senator Whitehouse is a disingenuous weasel (or is it better to say he is a genuine weasel?)

This is critically important. Clarity is key here.

What possible reason could there be in mentioning “Aryans” and “right-wing militia” groups if not to suggest that Senate Republicans are influenced by these groups and taking their cues from them? Why on earth would it be necessary for this tiny little man (who couldn’t piece together an argument for two and two being four without hurling personal attacks) to mention “birthers” and “fanatics” if not to tie them to Senate Republicans?

Are Democrats seriously this dense? This pathetic?

No one can peddle non sequiturs like liberals.

Are there Aryans in this country?


So what?

There are also child rapists and murderers who supported Barack Obama. There are horrible people who threw their support behind this President. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

What kind of stir do you think would be caused if a Republican from the Senate floor said:

They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President George W. Bush. The anti-war freaks, the Marxist fanatics who want to see America brought down, the people running around in left-wing university-backed socialist groups and global warming nutbags, it is unbearable to them that President George W. Bush should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.

Incidentally, I couldn’t care less whose shoes are parked under the Oval Office desk. Whether it is Barack Obama or Linus Van Pelt, any Chief Executive who supports the kind of damage he is trying so hard to inflict on this country, you’re damn right I want to “break” him.

But not because he’s black.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 21, 2009


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 20, 2009


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009

Yes, Senator Ben Nelson, the “Pro-Life To A Point” Democrat, sold out.  Like the Joe Lieberman buy out, I suppose this one, too, should have been expected. If nothing else, Nelson has demonstrated for the American people – two-thirds of which do not support this bill – that there is a price tag on innocent human life. He has ripped a page from the Mary Landrieu Book of Ethics and Goodness in securing some Nebraska-bound goodies from the American taxpayer – with money we don’t have – by agreeing to ditch his principles (and I use that word lightly) in the name of political expediency.

Here’s an idea. Let’s go ahead and retire the phrase “pro-life Democrat.” Let’s throw it on the stinking trash heap of alluring words and sayings and set a match to it. Let’s toss it aside like so much salt on an ice-covered driveway. Let’s incinerate the notion that those who claim to be pro-life donkeys cannot be bought off – because they obviously can. Apparently, the life an unborn baby is precious and worth protecting only until enough sweetheart promises can be secured for one’s home state.

Most remarkable is the fact that both ends of political spectrum aren’t happy at all with Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment.” Both sides are looking at the same language and walking away with completely different conclusions.

What’s consistent is that both sides are pissed off.

Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women issued a statement today:

The National Organization for Women is outraged that Senate leadership would cave in to Sen. Ben Nelson, offering a compromise that amounts to a Stupak-like ban on insurance coverage for abortion care. Right-wing ideologues like Nelson and the Catholic Bishops may not understand this, but abortion is health care. And health care reform is not true reform if it denies women coverage for the full range of reproductive health services.

We call on all senators who consider themselves friends of women’s rights to reject the Manager’s Amendment, and if it remains, to defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation.

Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Committee isn’t pleased either:

The manager’s amendment is light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was approved by the House of Representatives on November 8 by a bipartisan vote of 240-194. The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.

… if the final bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee does not contain the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, NRLC will score the House and Senate votes on the conference report as votes to allow federal mandates and subsidies for coverage of elective abortion. Unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is included in the final bill, and the new pro-abortion provisions dropped, a significant number of House members who voted for H.R. 3962 will not vote to pass the final legislation.

The bill stipulates that states will be able to opt out of having to cover abortions. 

And for those states that choose not to opt out, can you guess what happens next? (Roadmaps unnecessary). By golly, by gee, the federal government will pick up the tab. Thus, a pro-life taxpayer in Tyler, Texas, for example, will be able to fund the killing of an unborn child in Queens, New York.

Senator Mitch McConnell, earlier today, summed it up: “The bill includes permissive language on government-funded abortion.”


He also confirmed that Ben Nelson’s Nebraska is getting some “sweetheart deals” while the bill “imposes massive burdens on states that are already struggling under the weight of the cost of Medicaid.”

Senator Ben Nelson, I hope you remember how to type. You may very well need that skill once you’re thrown out on your ass come November.

wordpress statistics

Posted in abortion, Democrats, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009

From Fox News:

With a self-imposed Christmas deadline at stake, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid engineered a last-minute compromise that has won the support of the lone Democratic holdout and clinched the required 60 votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.

Marathon negotiations among the White House, Senate Democratic leaders and Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska, produced fresh concessions that will mean additional abortion restrictions in the legislation.

Democratic leaders also offered Nelson a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid aid Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News.

When asked about this, Sen. Kent Conrad, a key Democratic leader involved in the negotiations with Nelson, said, “Oh, it’ll be much more.”

The conservative Nebraska Democrat announced his support in a news conference Saturday, adding that he reserves the right to vote against the final bill if substantial changes are made by House and Senate negotiators.

Is there anything more noble or more responsible than buying a vote with money we don’t have?

Posted in health care | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009

As midnight approached last evening, reports started surfacing via the news wires that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to be very close to securing the 60 votes he needs to get radical health care reform – ObamaCare – passed in the Senate.

That means he may have found a way to win over Ben Nelson, Democrat Senator from Nebraska.

And that ain’t good.

Yesterday Reid spent most of the day meeting with Nelson – the lone Democrat holdout – trying to woo him back into the donkey fold. Apparently, the negotiations were quite successful. Nelson himself said that “real progress” was made.


It sort of gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling inside, doesn’t it? Like a coat hangar ripping out your gut.

Patrick Yoest with Dow Jones Newswires, via the Wall Street Journal posted this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appeared close Friday to securing the needed votes to pass sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, as senators shuttled to his office to work out a last-minute compromise on abortion … Nelson said late Friday after a negotiating session in Reid’s office that “real progress” has been made on a compromise and indicated that the two sides are looking closely at language aimed at bridging the two sides’ differences on abortion.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said that Friday was “a day of long, hard negotiations,” but that senators “made great progress and are pleased with how the discussions have proceeded.”

Democrats sought language on the abortion issue that would satisfy Nelson, who previously sought language similar to that in a House-passed version of health-care legislation that effectively bars insurance plans receiving any federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion for any of their enrollees.

WKOW-TV in Madison, Wisconsin reports:

Nelson has been seeking stricter abortion language and said new concepts he’s been offered may accomplish the goal of barring federal funding for abortion. He also reported progress on addressing his concerns over the costs to Nebraska of an expansion of Medicaid.

The talks were expected to continue Friday night and Saturday morning.

Dems want to see this monstrosity passed by Christmas Day.

In order for that to happen, a lot of things have to fall into place.

Later today – sometime after 7:30AM (after the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill is voted on) – focus will shift back to health care. There will be three total motions filed by Harry Reid – each one requiring thirty hours of debate time before a vote can be taken. 

He is expected to file what is known as a “manager’s amendment” – a version of the health care bill that is inclusive of all the changes to the original 2000-plus page bill currently in the Senate.

After Reid files the “manager’s amendment,” it will be read aloud – something that could take anywhere from 10 to 11 hours.

From the time the reading of the bill is completed, thirty hours of debate time is required before the first cloture vote on the “manager’s amendment” can take place.

So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, the “manager’s amendment” is filed at 8:00AM this morning. The bill is then read aloud for eleven hours, which takes us to 7:00PM tonight. After that, 30 hours of debate brings us to approximately 2:00AM Monday morning. That’s when the first cloture vote is taken.

Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00AM Tuesday morning – the second cloture vote takes place (the substitute amendment).

Then, thirty hours after that – approximately 2:00PM Wednesday afternoon – the shell bill or underlying bill (inclusive of all changes and amendments) will come up for what will be the third cloture vote.

Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00PM on Christmas Eve – the final vote on the whole deal will take place.

That’s the breakdown.

God help us.


wordpress statistics

Update December 19, 2009 – 9:52 AM

The Senate, as expected, approved the $636 billion Department of Defense Appropriations Bill this morning. That means the road to ObamaCare is officially open – and if there’s any truth to the reports circulating this morning, Ben Nelson has crumbled. Dems have got their sixty.


Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009

Wanted: A touch of global warming.

All hyper-exhalers, flatulence aficionados, fossil fuel enthusiasts, raw data manipulators and dirty coal warriors are free to apply.

Lots of openings available.

Location: Anywhere in Copenhagen.

It is a shame that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi couldn’t stay a bit longer. She was certainly welcome to. Clearly, she was among friends. Unfortunately, sandwiched by snow storms on either side of the Atlantic – and with only a small time window in which to operate – Pelosi was forced to leave the global warming summit in Denmark earlier than she might have liked to.

CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry writes:

In a strange twist, a Washington snowstorm is forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to make an early departure from a global warming summit here in Denmark. Pelosi told CNN that military officials leading her Congressional delegation have urged the 21 lawmakers to leave Copenhagen several hours earlier than scheduled on Saturday.

The Speaker said she has agreed to the new travel plan so that lawmakers can get back to Washington before much of the expected storm wallops the nation’s capital.

Just imagine how much worse it would have been in Copenhagen if not for the army of greenhouse-gas emitting planes and vehicles that inundated the city during the global warming summit. Thanks to localized man-made warming, a cold weather catastrophe of historic proportion was probably averted. What could have been a crippling ice storm turned out to be a simple snow event. A few more private jets and Hummers thrown into the carbon footprint mix, and it might have been nothing more than a heavy rain.

wordpress statistics

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science, Nancy Pelosi | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009

Elevator was full.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Many on my side of the aisle like to use the phrase “smaller government” when upholding one of the foundational tenets of conservatism. I prefer to use the term “limited government” (i.e., restricting the federal government to only those functions clearly expressed in the Constitution). The distinction is very important.

“Smaller” government does not necessarily mean that the feds are limited to involving themselves to only specific areas of public life. Rather, it could still mean a far-reaching, overly intrusive, finger-in-everyone’s-pie brand of governance – but at a seemingly curtailed, more reasonably palatable level. It could mean prescribing cutbacks in specific areas, or being less involved in areas they shouldn’t have been meddling in in the first place – potentially good things, of course, depending on where those cuts happen – but it is not the same as keeping government confined to its Constitutional charges.

And while it may be a matter of semantics when it comes to collecting poll data, a new Rasmussen survey shows that the American people – by a margin of 2-1 – prefer “smaller” government.

And yes, that’s a good thing.

From Rasmussen:

Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes. That’s the second highest finding of the year: In August at the height of the congressional town hall controversies over the health care plan, 70% felt that way.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% prefer a government with more services and higher taxes. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure which is best.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party like a smaller government better. Democrats are more narrowly divided: 51% favor a smaller government, but 37% opt for a larger, more activist government.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of liberals chose a government with more services and higher taxes. Eighty-six percent (86%) of conservatives think a smaller government is better.

Six in ten also say that tax cuts, instead of increased government spending, are a better way to create jobs.

One would think this latest polling data is worthy of a rousing “hip hip hooray!” or even a “Yeah, baby!” from those of us on the steadily-recharging right. However, when I see these kinds of poll results, I am wont to proceed with caution.

Indeed, people can say anything they want all day long. They can make philosophical assertions for all the tally-takers, poll masters and statistical inquisitors they wish. But unless they put their votes where their poll questionnaires are, it’s hard to go sis-boom-bah over this.

The fact is, people like their “stuff.”

They want their “services.”

And they’ll go down scratching and clawing to keep them.

Many, for instance, are quick to condemn the installation of railroad crossing lights in some rural county far, far away, but will burn down the courthouse if their own neighborhood playground funding is slashed.

Platitudes and theories are dandy in water cooler debates, but how much Americans are really willing to do without in the name of conservatism, no one can really know.

Rob at the great Say Anything blog writes:

Maybe we’re seeing a new shift in the American electorate. Maybe this is that awakened “sleeping giant.” I could be persuaded to believe that, but in the past most Americans are only nominally against big government spending. When you talk about spending (and the debts and deficits that spending creates) in general terms it’s hard to find a single American who isn’t in favor of less. But when you start talking about specific spending, well suddenly that’s a different matter.


Please don’t misunderstand. As I said earlier, this is a good thing. This is generally a “thumbs up” kind of story.

Just keep talkin’, Obamacrats.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Polls | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.

I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?

The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.

Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.

The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.

As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).

Obama said:

We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.

Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.


This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.

It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.

In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:

If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.

Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.

Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”


Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?


The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.

Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?

We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.

So what? What does that mean exactly?

If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.

And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.

Another thank you to President Obama.

If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.

I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Posted in humor | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

 That’ll probably buff right out.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 17, 2009

I suspect even agnostics have to smile at this.

Not that this would be the game-breaking affirmation needed to prod them head-first into the “believers” camp, but it’s got to make them wonder, even if just a little bit. At the very least, it must have them thinking that if there is a God, he must have one hell of a sense of humor. (I’m a New York Mets fan, so I know this to be the case).

Denmark – the host country for the 193-nation global warming conference – hasn’t had a white Christmas in fourteen years, and only seven in the last one hundred years.

This year, however, the snow has started falling in Copenhagen – a blizzard, they’re calling it – and experts are saying that a white Christmas is very possible. Low temperatures are on the docket for the next few days as delegates from all over the world knock heads together trying to figure out how to put the breaks on global warming.

I can’t help it. I love it.

Christian Wienberg from writes:

World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight. “Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”

U.S. President Barack Obama will arrive before the summit is scheduled to end tomorrow.

In other news, the only thing louder than the demonstrators locking horns with police in Copenhagen was the sound of thunderous applause for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as he denounced Capitalism as the “silent and terrible ghost in the room.”

Really, if anything needs to be said after that, you’re not paying attention.

wordpress statistics

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 17, 2009

It wasn’t exactly an appearance by the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but CBS’s Harry Smith probably needed to put a towel down, or have an extra change of clothes handy. Not unlike a Frankie-crazed bobbysoxer at the Paramount, or a poodle-skirted Elvis devotee, he was mesmerized, caught in the spell of the hypnotic cadence of Al Gore’s exquisitely haunting  lyrics (or is that hauntingly exquisite?).

True, Smith didn’t scream like a teenaged girl; rather, he seemed almost too anesthetized by Gore’s animal charisma to much more than sigh. It isn’t often that a bona fide journalist (for the want of a better word) has the opportunity to allow himself to succumb to the lilting liquidity of free-verse poetry by a former Vice-President on the air. It was reminiscent of two teenagers sitting at a Denny’s late on a Saturday night – the guy is sitting there, brooding, moody, painfully artistic, reading his poems (or song lyrics) to the girl, who is sitting transfixed, heart fluttering, occassionally finding the composure to mutter an awe-inspired “wow,” thinking how amzingly cute and deep he is.

Such was the case on CBS’s Early Show yesterday when Al Gore sat down with the enchanted Harry Smith and read one of his poems.

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters writes:

…The 23-year CBS veteran journalist, almost like a teenybopper swooning as she approaches a rock star for an autograph, actually asked the former Vice President to read it to him.

When the Global Warmingist-in-Chief was done, Smith said breathlessly, “Wow. I’m so glad you read that…I’m happy to hear it in your voice.”

Readers are advised that Gore is WAY too busy to discuss climate change with John Stossel, and is WAY too busy to answer questions about ClimateGate.

However, he’s NEVER too busy to read poetry to journalists.

When there are no more arguments to make because the theory of a man-made global warming doomsday has been shot full of holes; when your credibility has disintegrated faster than President Obama’s approval ratings; when you are a laughing stock (even among the scientific community); when the sound most associated with you is that of scornful laughter; when almost no one (outside of the hysterical) wants to hear what you have to say anymore, what can you do?

Go on a TV show and read a poem about how you feel about global warming.

What else?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 17, 2009

When conservatives gather to protest – like, for instance, at the tea parties that lit up the map over the spring and summer – not only is there no need for riot police to be brought in to maintain order, there’s no need for city sanitation workers to come swooping in either. Conservatives not only know how to demonstrate, they know how to clean up after themselves.

Libs, by contrast, have a tendency to be a bit messier. To them, demonstrating means clashing with law enforcement officials, disrupting everyday life in the communities they infest, carrying signs with faces or references to totalitarians, and leaving behind a whole lot of litter.

In Copenhagen, the world is gathering for what is being called the Woodstock of Climate Change Conferences. Doomsday prognosticators of every stripe, from every corner of the globe, are meeting to share their hysteria, reinforce their paranoia, and exchange contemptuous notions about humankind in general. It’s a time when more fossil fueled, greenhouse-gas emitting machines find themselves in Copenhagen than at any time in that city’s history.

It’s been magical time thus far.

But it isn’t all about enviro-fascism and windmills.

It’s about violence.

Dressed in winter hats, scarves, mittens and sweaters, demonstrators demanded that the emissaries and dignitaries gathered there do something about global warming.

Charles J. Hanley of the Associated Press writes:

Outside the meeting site in Copenhagen’s suburbs, police fired pepper spray and beat protesters with batons as hundreds of demonstrators sought to disrupt the 193-nation conference, the latest action in days of demonstrations to demand “climate justice” — firm steps to combat global warming. Police said 260 protesters were detained.

And while there were no instruments on hand to record the precise levels, the amount of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by the rabblerousing demonstrators – as well as the police who clashed with them – must have been excessive.

That’s just a guess.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 17, 2009

I know this is old, but this just struck me as so funny. I had to post it. I hope it’s legible.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 17, 2009

Not smart. He left the trunk open.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 16, 2009

A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. That goes for Joe, too.

As President Obama’s approval rating continues to do its best anvil-falling-out-of-a window imitation, and with poll after poll showing the American people do not buy into the liberty-raping fairy-tale that is ObamaCare, Democrats continue to demonstrate that they are impervious to the people they are charged to represent. The American people do not want what Obamacrats are hawking, yet Dems disdainfully forge ahead in their crusade to sign into legislation something – anything – “historic.”

It is their arrogance that is historic.

Yesterday, Senator Joe Lieberman – often extoled by many conservatives as a political compatriot (specifically on the War on Terror) and a liberal with a conscience  – ostensibly informed the world that there are limitations to his principles, and that, much like Louisiana Senator Mary Landieu, he can be bought. Now that he’s got what he asked for – the dropping of both the public option and the Medicare buy-in from the Senate version of the health care reform bill – he’s back in the fold.

Said Senator Independent, “I think what’s beginning to emerge – and I know some people are not happy about it – is an historic achievement: health care reform such as we have not seen in this country for decades.” Talk show host Laura Ingraham called it Lieberman’s “verbal flatulence.”

Spot on.

There are many on my side of this debate – which, incidentally, are the majority of Americans – expressing dismay, and even betrayal, at Lieberman’s apparent shift back into the Leftocrat womb (which, incidentally, he never left). I’m not exactly sure why anyone would be surprised by this. It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. He is still a liberal’s liberal on just about every issue. Dropping the public option, as good as that sounds on the surface, doesn’t make the bill any less government-centric, nor does it suddenly make it cost friendly. It’s a ruse. Indeed, Lieberman can gush about the historic nature of this debacle – comparing it to the “achievments” of Medicare and Medicaid, rivaled only by Social Security for their inefficiency and cost-ineffectiveness – but the fact is, once this bill passes (public option or not), 16% of the economy falls under government control just like that.

Insurance companies will be heavily regulated by the feds. A glut of new agencies and commissions will spring to life. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer describes what will emerge as a kind of “proxy system” where health care will essentially be run by the government through under-their-thumb insurers.

Lieberman, meanwhile, is trying to be all things to all people. He certainly doesn’t want to ruffle the feathers of his insurance company constituency, but he must also remain true to his social liberalism. Standing up against the public option is a nice bone for insurance providers, but the rest of the nearly two-thousand page bill appeals to his big government approach to handling health care reform.

He is no dope.

Health care delivery will belong to the federal government even without a public option.  That’s why Dems were willing to give him what he wanted in exchange for his support. Leftists who are mad at Lieberman need to relax and look at the bigger picture. Good times could still be ahead. From a socialist/marxist perspective, if the bill is passed, it’ll still all good. You’ll see.

Be patient.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 16, 2009

Perhaps “Heather Has Two Mommies” would have been more appropriate, or some sort of teen magazine. Maybe even a scratch ‘n sniff Michelle Obama colorforms set.

But the Bible? That book with all the God stuff in it?

Surely, that can’t be permitted, can it?

Isn’t there a law or a commandment that says there shall be no bibles in a public schools because of a separation of church and state amendment somewhere or something?

Not to worry. The principal at Madison Park Elementary School in Parlin, New Jersey is apologizing. One of his teachers simply made a mistake. Of course the Bible can be read by students during quiet time if they so choose  – as can any other religious book, for that matter. The teacher was absolutely wrong, said the principal, to make a 3rd Grader put her Bible away during quiet time because it was inappropriate.

From MY Fox New York:

Michelle Jordat says her daughter, Mariah, cried when the teacher told her to put away the Bible. Jordat says her daughter’s feelings were hurt and she was confused. “This was injustice,” Jordat says. “No other child has to go through this again.”

Jordat accepted the principal’s apology, but wants something in writing stating that reading the Bible is OK during personal reading time. She also says she will speak to a lawyer. The Old Bridge Board of Education held a meeting Tuesday evening and addressed the issue for concerned parents.

Momma at the great Weasel Zippers blog wonders if the teacher would have said anything had the book been a Qur’an.

Let’s be perfectly honest. Outside of hardcore pornography, is there anything other than a Bible that would have prompted the teacher to order the child to put away what she was reading?

A pamphlet on how to put a condom on a banana?

The Vagina Monologues?

The Communist Manifesto?

I understand she’s only a 3rd Grader. There aren’t too many nine-year-olds reading Karl Marx – not yet anyway. I’m merely making a point.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 16, 2009


There has to be a story here.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 15, 2009

The little things in life make it all worthwhile. I find enormous pleasure in things that many would classify as unglamorous, unsophisticated, even banal: sitting on the couch with my wife, doing a jigsaw puzzle, stealing a few precious moments with my ever-active daughters, reading, taking in a Honeymooners marathon, Yodels and Yoo Hoo, so on. I concede that I also get tremendous satisfaction out of seeing the absurdities of life exposed for what they are – particularly when those absurdities have the potential to lead to genuinely destructive actions – like the fraud of a world in danger due to man-made global warming.

As the Climate Change Summit continues in Copenhagen – and the crisis of a globe burning up with fever continue to be championed by the terminally hysterical in attendance – there is something sweetly satisfying and deliciously ironic about seeing a group of journalists standing outside for hours, waiting to get into what is effectively a global warming conference, braving the cold in near-freezing temperatures. It’s fantastically funny to me, not unlike having a line of fat people waiting for free government cheese, or listening to two people screaming over eachother complaining how the other one never listens.

Noel Sheppard at News Busters writes:

A group of journalists stood for many hours in near-freezing temperatures Monday waiting to get into the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen. Marvelously among them was Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein who regularly reports on the dire consequences of — wait for it! — global warming. Ironically, his articles are so filled with inflammatory hyperbole concerning Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s favorite bogeyman that scientists have denounced him.

But before we get there, the Climate Pool reported at Facebook Monday (h/t Tom Nelson):

With U.N. security letting in only those cleared last week, hundreds of accredited delegates, journalists and NGO representatives were left to stand for hours in near-freezing temperatures before being let through. “It was crazy,” AP’s Seth Borenstein said. “You couldn’t leave the line. You couldn’t go to the bathroom, you couldn’t eat. Then snowflakes started falling. One woman even said, ‘if lightning strikes me, would they take me out of line?'”

Sheppard goes on to say, “As a humorous aside, what Seth [Borenstein] and his fellow journalists could really have used Monday was a little global warming.”

The irony continues tomorrow, incidentally, as Mother Nature herself will be heard from.

Heavy snowfall is predicted for Copenhagen at the Global Warming Conference.

It’s the little things.

wordpress statistics

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »