Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for January, 2010


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 30, 2010

Eighteen years ago today, my twin daughters were born.

It seems like a few days ago.

A month ago, at the most.

I’m not sure why my wife and I were so lucky to be blessed with such wonderful people – such good people – but we have been, and we are grateful beyond words.

It has been a marvelous journey.

It’s all ahead of them.

Happy birthday, girls.

Daddy loves you.

And incidentally, I’ve been saying it for years, and I haven’t changed my position … I will not eat them here or there, I will not eat them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam I am.

I’m firm on this.


Posted in Personal | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010

Admittedly, I can be a bit demanding. In my everyday work, I expect a certain amount of competence from co-workers and associates while I always try and go above and beyond the call of duty for them and my customers. While I continually strive for professional excellence, I understand that as human beings we are all wont to make mistakes, misspeak, misinterpret and just flat out come across as dumb. It’s the way God created us – flawed, with the ability to make choices.

So be it.

However, there are basic standards in every field of endeavor – elementary prerequisites that a society-at-large can reasonably expect of those in a given field to possess. For instance, one would expect a physician to know basic biology, or a car mechanic to know how a crankshaft works, or an accountant to know how to use a spreadsheet. These are not unreasonable expectations. Likewise, my clients have reasonable professional expectations of me.

In the world of American politics, my expectations are almost nonexistent. For example, I do not expect liberals to make sense. I do not expect them to summon the tenets of common sense to make policy decisions. I never expect them to ask “what happens next?” I cannot be disappointed by them. And I certainly don’t expect them to interpret the Constitution correctly.

But it is not unreasonable to expect the President of the United States – who takes the oath to defend the Constitution – to know what is or isn’t in it. It seems even more reasonable to expect the Chief Executive to be familiar with the Constitution’s contents, given that he was a “constitutional lawyer” at the University of Chicago. (Note the quotation marks).

During his State of the Union address, President Obama made the claim the America finds its unity in its “incredible diversity.” I haven’t a clue what he means by that. That is not the same thing as E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one – which, definitionally, attributes America’s “unity” to its value system, not its makeup. It is wonderful that people from all corners of the globe come here … but they come because of America’s values, not because of their desire to transplant what they left behind here.

I digress.

On Wednesday evening, the President said:

We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal….

Indeed, all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The problem is that these poignant words are not found in the Constitution.

They come from the Declaration of Independence.

And no one at the Obamacratic round table – speech writer, advisor, yesman or lackey – caught it. No one.

I don’t recall the mainstream media bringing it up in their post-Bammy Chat analysis on Wednesday night.

As Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit put it: “And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech.”


It harkens back a couple of months when MSNBC blunderdoodle Rachel Maddow said it was the Declaration of Independence that had a preamble, not the Constitution.

The “All Men Are Created Equal” clause in the Constitution can be found just after the “Separation of Church And State” clause, just before the “Thou Shalt Not Be Offended” passage.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010

So, last night the White House taps the Justice Department on the shoulder and says, “You Know, J, I’ve been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that maybe we ought to take these 9/11 terror trials out of New York City and put them somewhere else. It might be the best thing for everyone. So, do me a favor, would you? Be a dear and look into possibly of getting us a new spot, okay? Thanks, hon!”

The New York Daily News reports:

The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would “prefer that they did it elsewhere” and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

“It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.

“There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”

State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was “pleased” that the administration is reconsidering the location of the trial.

Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke “with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives,” said the senator’s spokesman, Josh Vlasto.

It’s a shame the White House didn’t fully come to its senses and tell the Justice Department, “You Know, J, I’m fond of you and all – and you’ve done some great work for us in the past – but I really need to give this Khalid Shaikh Mohammed thing to the military boys. It’s really their gig. It’s a war thing, you know.”

Leaders have suggested other venues for the trial, such as the Military Academy at West Point or Stewart Air National Guard Base in upstate Newburgh.

Guantanamo Bay, I hear, has excellent facilities, including air conditioning, padded matresses, and toilets capable of flushing down entire books, if necessary.

Let us not forget that these terrorists already admitted their guilt and were more than prepared to accept their punishment. In fact, they asked for death. There was no problem whatsoever until the coddling hand of modern liberalism intervened. Now there are a whole lot of virgins up in heaven, sitting around, doing nothing.

This trial has no business being held in the very city that suffered the brunt of the damage on September 11, 2001 – nor does it have any business being held in Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, the Ozarks, Pumpkinpussville, or any civilian venue in the United States.

It was certainly nice of Mayor Mike Bloomberg to take a breather from his war on cigarettes, fatty oils and salt to actually do something that makes sense.

But the real question is: Who’s going to host this farce now that the Big Apple is saying, “no”?

Maybe a deal can be struck with Senator Ben Nelson for an Omaha show trial.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Justice System, Mike Bloomberg, New York City, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010

Maybe lower prices for the seats?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010

Well, that didn’t take long. 

I expected some sort of grace period. I thought there would, at least, be a reasonable amount of time allowed to pass before the President’s second face emerged. I would have guessed that Obamacrats would let the freshness of the President’s State of the Union words blur into our collective memories before diving back into the “politics as usual” pool. 

That’ll teach me to have expectations. 

Not twenty-four hours after President Obama castigated lobbyists in his State of the Union performance, saying that Washington needed to put an end to their “outsized influence,” guess who’s being invited into the Messianic inner circle with open arms? 

Bob Cusak at The Hill writes: 

A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union. The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.” 

The invitation, which went to a variety of stakeholders, was sent by Fred Baldassaro, a senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Business Affairs and Public Liaison. 

The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.” 

Another call … is on government reform and transparency. 

The briefing on “government reform and transparency,” which was scheduled to happen earlier today, was not open to the public. 

Frankly, lobbyists don’t concern me any more or any less than any other cog in the wheel of the Washington political contraption. It’s reality. Lobbyists serve their purpose as well as their masters. It is what it is. If I had a dollar for every time a politician was going to kick lobbyists to the curb, or do away with the “special interests,” I could pay off the deficit myself and have enough left over to buy waffles where the Obamas shop.

There is, however, the reality that this President is so far out of league and so out of touch – showing so much contempt for the American people and their ability to see right through him – that he absolutely has no concept of how to appear like he actually means what he says. Despite his raging metrosexuality, he would make a horrible woman because he simply hasn’t the ability to fake it. From saying his administration was lobbyist-free (when it provably wasn’t), to saying that the heavy influence of lobbyists on Washington politics would be a thing of the past – which is like saying the heavy influence of the sun on earth life would be a thing of the past – Barack Obama continues to act like he’s still halfway through his probationary period as a tour guide at Universal. 

Why go through all the trouble of blasting lobbyists if you’re going to turn around and invite them to closed door meetings that the public is obviously going to find out about? 

If, indeed, these “briefings” are taking place to let the K-Street crowd know that things are going to be different from now on in Washington – which they aren’t – why couldn’t the President have said something during his State of the Union like, “…And beginning tomorrow, the “outsized influence” of these lobbysists will come to an end as I usher in a new era of transparency with a series of briefings …” 

He certainly could have handled it better – if not looking like a moonbat was on his docket. 

And if these calls are not to serve the purpose of putting lobbyists in their place – and I don’t think there is an organism on the planet who believes that’s the case – then everything that came out of his mouth on the entire subject is a lie. 

Not that it would surprise anyone. 

wordpress statistics 

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010

What kind of country does the President think we live in? To hear it from him, this is a nation of downtrodden, destitute bread-liners, without anything to look forward to except a benevolent government with a bosom warm enough to shelter them and a nipple large enough to feed them.

To listen to this arrogant disconnected President, one could only come to the conclusion that America is a tapestry of maltreated, exploited, disenfranchised victims.

I’ve got news for him: America is not a third world country. She is not a desperate nation attempting to feed a starving population. She hasn’t an antiquated infrastructure, nor is she saddled with nineteenth century medical care. We are not a nation in need of “hope.” I am sick of his depiction of the United States as a population of browbeaten, dejected weak-kneed whiners.

America can’t handle tough times, according to our President. We aren’t capable of toughing out whatever economic troubles are at hand. Instead, Bam is more than willing to spend unprecedented amounts of money that simply doesn’t exist to try and make it all okay now. He’s content to siphon more taxes from productive Americans as well as increase the burdens of future Americans – most of whom are yet unborn – so that this poor-little-baby generation can feel better today.

Since when has that ever been what America is all about?

I resent that my President has such a low regard for the American people. I despise the message he projects.

This isn’t a country of sad sack drifters and subjegated bread-crust collectors, as Bammy makes it sound. Rather, this is a nation of fed-up citizens who recognize that the coming of the Messianic Age has been an assault on their liberties and sensibilities. This is a nation that does not accept the notion that America’s salve and bandage is ever-expanding, cloak-and-dagger government. This is a nation tired of hearing about how the party in power knows better then they do.

Face it, the President’s performance last night was inelegant, priggish, and sounded like a metal wire might have been stabbing him in the crotch as he spoke. He seemed testy and sanctimonious. He was cliché-mad as he continued to speak about himself and blame President Bush for every wrong to befall the planet since taking office a year ago. He swore not to walk away from his health care reform push despite a nation that is decidedly against it. He swore not to pass on astronomical debt to future generations, despite the fact that he continues to propose hundreds of billions of dollars in expanded government initiatives. He promised the deficit would be cut, but his assumptions on what would have to happen for it to be so is more improbable than Harry Reid switching parties.

In short, he offered nothing – absolutely nothing – last night . .. except a whole lot of him.

Oh wait … and that bit about creating a debt commission.

A debt commission!

Is this the best he’s got?

The words “fox” and “henhouse” come to mind.

“Not that this administration – outside of me – has done anything to win your trust thus far, but I’m going to get a bunch of people together to put together a group of people to look into our debt situation. I can’t guarantee they’ll be tax cheats or Mao ehthusiasts, but they’ll be the very best that America has to offer.

Oh yeah, and George Bush likes to crush the necks of little, itty-bitty kittens…”

Why not just create the Department of Toto and Dorothy? It would be more productive.

The President defended every bit of failure in his first year with a whole lot of zilch, setting himself up for an equally sterile second year. For a man who said he was uninterested in relitigating the past, that’s pretty much what last night’s State of the Union was. He was painfully unpresidential and repulsively partisan. He even had the audacity to scold the Supreme Court for upholding the First Amendment.

Class act.

Last night can be summed up as Barack Obama looking with contempt upon the American people asking, “Are you folks not listening to me? Do I have to explain this all again?”

Last night, he said he wouldn’t quit.

I wish he and his whole gang of prancing Obamacrats would.

Incidentally, how much Plaster of Paris did it take to fix Nancy Pelosi’s mouth in that “I have a pain in my colon” position?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010

I know I shouldn’t laugh at this. It’s not like I’m personally invested. It isn’t as if I’m receiving any residual checks in the mail every time Fox News finishes ahead of the other cable networks. (I do, however, receive big fat direct Paypal deposits from the offices of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy on a rolling basis).

I really shouldn’t get such a charge out of this … but I can’t help it. I find it incredibly amusing.

Poor Keith Olbermann.

In the cable news ratings race for Tuesday, January 26th, The Big O finished behind that broadcasting mahatma, Joy Behar.

That’s right … Joy Behar beat Keith Olbermann in the ratings.

That’s like saying Chrone’s Disease edged out Ulcerative Colitis in the Irritable Bowel Sweepstakes.

I can’t be the only one who gets a charge out of this.

Of course, Behar received less than half of what Fox News’ lowest rated afternoon/evening program received – Shep Smith’s Fox Report, which hauled in over two million viewers – but she did also beat out ever-floundering Rachel Maddow.

MSNBC needs a hug.

While Bill O’Riley, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity each pulled in over three million viewers, there wasn’t a single host on CNN that even got one million.

Both of their viewers could not be reached for comment.


H/T Drudge Report

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Television | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010


So, that means only UNAUTHORIZED vehicles are permitted beyond this point?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2010

The subtitle to this unassuming little blog is “Combating Liberalism and Other Childish Notions.” I word it this way because I am of the mind that anything that is constituted to erode liberty, assail rugged individualism, increase government intrusion into the lives of its citizenry and attempt to legislate against the thoughts of its people must be fought. At the same time, any macro policy that is devised based on fanciful premises and emotion – the very foundation of modern liberalism – is, by definition, childish, and almost always ineffective. 

Hence, the subtitle. 

However, a more apropos subtitle might be “Exposing Liberalism For The Childish Notion It Is,” or “Dropping The Drawers Of Liberalism For The World To See” or “Aren’t Libs Dopey?” – although that last one might be a tad too Bill O’Riley. 

In yet another example of how lefties are loathe to progress past the initial “Don’t It Feel Good” stage of policy creation to what the great Thomas Sowell calls second-stage thinking (i.e., asking “what happens next”), the case against Geert Wilders in Holland exemplifies perfectly why modern liberalism doesn’t work when it comes to a very specific group of people – namely, those who are alive. 

Mr. Wilders is on trial in Amsterdam for offensive and prejudiced remarks against Islam. He is, in effect, on trial for Islamophobia. But the case, already absurd in that it is, on its surface, attempting to legislate what one man can legally hate, is evolving into a trial against the Quran itself – and that is not what the ever-tolerant, always open-minded, everyone-join-hands-and-say-howdy leftists had in mind. 

The never-ending lefty push for utopia looks to be backfiring in a profound way. 

Leon De Winter, in a Wall Street Journal article, writes: 

The Amsterdam court trying the controversial Dutch politician is now preoccupied with the question of whether this book (the Quran), sacred to more than a billion believers, can be compared to one of the most vile publications in the history of Western civilization — Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”  

What could possibly go wrong? 

In his writing and speeches, Mr. Wilders has found these two works to be similar in terms of their anti-Semitism and incitement to hatred, and has thus called for a publishing ban on the Quran similar to the one in place for “Mein Kampf.” This is what triggered Mr. Wilders’s prosecution for discriminatory and insulting remarks against Muslims and Islam. The Dutch politician, though, denies having insulted Muslims. He insists his focus is on radical Islam and the Quran, which he considers to be not only a religious text but also a political pamphlet encouraging Muslims to discriminate against and, if necessary, kill Jews, Christians, apostates and other unbelievers. That’s why Mr. Wilders claims the right to criticize and condemn Islam. 

Following complaints brought by mostly Muslim and radical leftist activists, Amsterdam’s district attorney in 2008 at first found no legal basis for prosecuting Mr. Wilders. Prosecutors were forced to change course only after an activist appeals court last year ordered Mr. Wilders’s prosecution—basically condemning the politician before any trial could even begin and before Mr. Wilders had a chance to defend himself. The court’s unusual intervention illustrates the Dutch confusion about the conflict between two essential rights: the right to free speech and the right to protection from discrimination. 

This is really quite a story – an important one. 

What looms on the horizon is a genuine, bona fide, first-class outbreak of hostilities between the nation of Holland and the Muslim world. 


Because Wilders’ legal team is calling on an impressive slate of expert witnesses to testify in this witless trial – including openly anti-Semitic, radical Islamists. 

It’s a brilliant move by the defense. 

After all, if a man is being put on trial for comparing Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” to the Quran, it must now be determined whether or not there is any truth in what he is alleging. The question, therefore, is: Is it unreasonable to comment on and compare the anti-Semitism of the two books? 

That means, with the help of expert testimony from such radical Islamists as Mohammed Bouyeri (Theo van Gogh’s killer), and well-known anti-Semite Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Quran itself must take the stand. 

Is this really the type of thing that should be pursued in a court of law in a modern, civilized society? 

Mr. De Winter says that regardless of the trial’s outcome, Mr. Wilder’s will find himself in a good position: 

According to polls, Mr. Wilders’s Freedom Party, a libertarian-conservative movement with populist tendencies, is currently the most popular political party in the Netherlands. If elections were held today, Mr. Wilders would be a serious contender for the position of prime minister. Mr. Wilders’s detractors are mistaken if they think a conviction would hurt him politically.  

The trial is a win-win situation for him: If the court rules to restrict Mr. Wilders’s right to free speech, many Dutchmen will interpret this as an effort by the politically correct establishment to limit the growing strength of the Freedom Party, which would widen its appeal to many voters. If, on the other hand, the prosecution fails to prove that Mr. Wilders has purposely insulted Muslims because of their religion, Mr. Wilders’s views will be seen as vindicated. Again, he will gain politically. 

The irony is … Muslim groups were not among those who brought Wilders to trial. 

Wilders is being charged with Group Insult of Muslims, Fomenting to Hate and Discrimination Against Muslims Because of their Religion, Fomenting to Hate and Discrimination Against Non-Western Foreigners and/or Moroccans Because of their Race, and Incitement to Hatred Against Moroccans and Non-Western Immigrants

So, will radical Islamists in the Netherlands now be charged with similar charges when they spew anti-Semitic rhetoric? Or when the spout off with anti-Western sentiments? Or anti-Christian?

Why wasn’t Wilders also charged with Fomenting to Hate and Discrimination Against Haters of other Non-Aryan Races and Populations? (i.e., Naziphobia) 

The very notion that a man in a modern European country can be tried for his dislike, disapproval, or hatred of any given religion is downright frightening. 

wordpress statistics 

Posted in Antisemitism, Islam | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2010

Do you have as many questions as I do when you look at this picture?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2010

How does the New York Times do it?

How on earth are they able to pull off the feats of derring-do-do that they do?

How does this belly-button-lint of a news organization, with about as much objectivity as President Obama has apology-free trips abroad, manage to get to the heart of the matter? After all, without the Times, mankind would never have known that what happened at Abu-Grahib in Iraq was, arguably, one of the worst catastrophes ever to befall human-kind – one notch above The Holocaust, one below George Bush’s re-election in 2004. Without them, the enemy would never have been able to know how the United States was prosecuting the War on Terror. (Who knows how long it might have taken them to figure out these things without the Grey-Haired Lady). And don’t forget the largest scandal in all of human history – the Iraqi Oil for Food Scandal.

Oh wait..

The New York Times barely covered that one.

Never mind.

Fortunately for all of us, we are alive to witness such journalistic brilliance as it shines like a million suns above us once again. The New York Times has risen above the pack, pulled ahead of the field, reminding the planet – and, indeed, the universe – why their newspaper makes the best puppy potty training paper around, exposing the true, Neanderthal undercurrent of supposedly liberal Massachusetts. They’ve uncovered the good-old-northern-boy, bean-eating, Cape Cod sexism that has covertly had blue Massachusetts in its patriarchal clutches for centuries.

The truth is now known.

Martha Coakley lost the Massachusetts Senatorial race to Republican Scott Brown because she has a vagina.

Clay Waters at News Busters writes:

On Monday, the New York Times joined other media outlets in suddenly uncovering sexism in overwhelmingly liberal Massachusetts, after the shocking takeover by Republican Scott Brown of a seat held by Democrats for almost 60 years. Katie Zezima reported from Boston: “After Senate Race, Some Say Barrier for Women in Massachusetts Still Stands.”

Not mentioned in the laundry list of accusations of “macho” politics: The womanizing and worse committed by the late liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy.

“The defeat of Martha Coakley in last week’s special election to fill the Senate seat that was long held by Edward M. Kennedy has reignited the debate over whether there is a glass ceiling for women in Massachusetts politics.

“Welcome to liberal Massachusetts — we’re not,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic political consultant. “And if you didn’t believe it before, anyone who thinks that Massachusetts is liberal in light of Tuesday’s results need only look at the record and lack of success women have had in Massachusetts politics. That should just put it away for good.”

For decades, women have been unable to gain a solid political toehold in Massachusetts, a state long dominated by male political figures. Five women in Massachusetts’s history — including Ms. Coakley, the attorney general — have been elected to statewide constitutional office, and four have been elected to the House of Representatives.”

Coakley in fact beat three men in the Democratic primary, which enabled her to lose to Brown in the first place.

If, indeed, there was such a thing as a liberal playbook that existed in physical form, it could, by now, be scrapped altogether. Everything in it has been memorized every which way known to man, and has been summoned and used endlessly in every conceivable situation.

Liberals never lose because of their ideas. Liberals are never defeated because their policies are unpopular. Liberals never lose elections because of what they stand for.

They lose because they have ovaries, or speak with an accent, or have higher levels of melanin in their skin, or haven’t had their fair share of radio time, or are misquoted and taken out of context.

And the New York Times is all over it.

Without a doubt, if the person who said that Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan had a penis, there’d be a filibuster proof Senate in place right now.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2010

Liberals can do all they can to try and convince the American public they are unaffected by the reality of their demise, but no one with a cowlick worth of sense will buy into it. Everything Obamacrat has that Luca Brasi/seafood-in-a-vest kind of smell to it. If a Republican governor in New Jersey, and a GOP Senator from Massachusetts, aren’t enough to convince the happy masses that barely one year into the Messianic Age the wheels are bouncing off Obama’s little red wagon, then this latest poll from Public Policy Polling ought to help.

Just about half of all Americans, according to the poll, trust Fox News – that’s more than any other network, including the dying alphabets.

Fancy that.

Andy Barr at Politico writes:

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.

Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.

Thirty-two percent of respondents said they trusted CBS, while 31 percent trusted ABC. Both CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46 percent of those polled.

As Zip at the great Weasel Zippers blog says: “What do al-Qaeda, Afghanistan and Fox News have in common? They’re all wars Obama is losing…”

And did anyone mention that there’s a Republican Senator in Massachusetts now?

(Just in case you missed that).

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2010

I am not a big-time blogger. Indeed, I have my regular readers, and I do get my share of new traffic, but in the grand scheme of things, phrases like “small potatoes” and “who the hell is he?” come to mind.

In recent times, I admit I’ve felt more than a little bit despondent because readership here was not going up as quickly as I had hoped.

It is what it is.

Thus, I thought I might take a bit of a blog sabbatical – a vacation from having to craft funny phrases, off-key commentary and comma-rich prose. After all, I reasoned, why keep writing if no one is reading?

(The real question is how does one define “no one”).

But when a little do-nothing pip-squeak cyber-scribbler like me gets more “return visitors” than a big time New York newspaper gets paying subscribers, it may be a sign that I need to rethink my decision to walk away from the blogosphere.

John Koblin of the New York Observer talks about the woes of New York Newsday:

In late October, Newsday, the Long Island daily that the Dolans bought for $650 million, put its web site,, behind a pay wall. The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest. Could its fate be a sign of what others, including The New York Times, might expect?

So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to

The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class.

That astoundingly low figure was revealed in a newsroom-wide meeting last week by publisher Terry Jimenez when a reporter asked how many people had signed up for the site. Mr. Jimenez didn’t know the number off the top of his head, so he asked a deputy sitting near him. He replied 35.

Michael Amon, a social services reporter, asked for clarification.

“I heard you say 35 people,” he said, from Newsday’s auditorium in Melville. “Is that number correct?”

Mr. Jimenez nodded.

Hellville, indeed.

The web site redesign and relaunch cost the Dolans $4 million, according to Mr. Jimenez. With those 35 people, they’ve grossed about $9,000.

I think I will re-evaluate my plans to walk away from this thing. Sure, I thought my visitation numbers were pathetic. But at the going Newsday rate, I should be able to pull in about $250,000.

Thanks, Newsday.

There’s hope for Roman Around yet.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Roman Around | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2010

Here in New York, everything is New York Jets. Admittedly, I’m unaccustomed to having the media go berzerk over my team. That’s something usually reserved for the good teams – like the Yankees or Giants.

The week leading up to today’s AFC Championship Game has been an exciting one. I’ve enjoyed it immensely. Indeed, it seems everyone in New York has gone “green” … but rest easy, there isn’t an Al Gore in sight. This is the good kind of green.

With a win today over the Indianapolis Colts, the Jets move on to the Super Bowl for the first time in 41 years. (Just saying that is to dabble in the surreal).

When the Jets played in Super Bowl III all those years ago, they were heavy underdogs against a team that, on paper, should have chewed them up, spit them out, and used the remnants as window insulation. Forty-one years later, it is, once again, the mighty Colts – they were in Baltimore then – standing between the Jets and destiny.

As much as football and broadcasting have changed in four decades, I thought it would be interesting to take a look back – before football was America’s most popular sport, before the ten hours of pregame hooplah, before cigarettes were banned from television advertising, before the age of space-age television graphics – at how that first Jets/Colts game looked, forty-one years ago, as it happened on broadcast television.

Forty years ago, the pregame show for Super Bowl III did not begin five days before kickoff. There were not pregame concerts, channels dedicated to endless prognostication, nor were there in-depth profiles of everyone from the waterboy to the clubhouse toilet scrubbers accompanied by cutting edge computer animation.

Not that any of that is bad.

Rather, back in the olden days, the pregame show was 30 minutes long.

Here is exactly how someone would have kicked off his Super Bowl III television festivities forty-one years ago.

It begins with the famed NBC peacock and a slight sampling of the state-of-the-art technology.

The clip is :59 seconds long.

It is the first of four clips I am sharing from Super Bowl III.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2010

This is the second of four clips I am sharing of the original NBC broadcast of the Super Bowl game forty-one years ago between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Jets.

This is how the actual game broadcast began, following the thirty-minute pregame show.

This one showcases the state of the art graphics and the sponsorship billboard (yes, that means cigarette advertisers). It also features play-by-play man Curt Gowdy talking a bit about Joe Namth’s famous guarantee of victory over the mighty Colts.

We’ve come a long way in forty-one years.

The clip is 2 minutes 45 seconds long.

Fascinating to be sure.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2010

Forty-one years ago, when there two professional football leagues – the AFL and NFL – arguably the most famous Super Bowl was played in Miami, Florida.

Super Bowl III matched the NFL’s Baltimore Colts and the AFL’s New York Jets.

I thought it would be interesting to take a look back at how different the game was presented back then – both in content and , obviously, in technological terms.

First, from the original NBC broadcast of January 12, 1969, here is something that has LONG since been eliminated from the pregame festivities …. the Pledge of Allegiance.

It was conducted by three of the Apollo 8 astronauts.

A different time, indeed.

The video is :57 seconds long.

It is the third of four I am posting looking back at how the big game looked 41 years ago.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2010

Once upon a time, Super Bowl commercials weren’t exactly super. Of course, Super Bowl ads weren’t quite as pristigious as they are today. Products like mint shaving cream, Bic ballpoint pens and Clamato flavored juice from Motts aren’t exactly the type of products we have come to associate with Super Bowl advertising.

Forty-one years ago, when the Colts and Jets met in Super Bowl III, the primary products advertised during the NBC broadcast were not cars and beer.

It was cigarettes.

Here is a sampling of some of the commercials that aired forty years ago during the broadcast of Super Bowl III. (There’s only one cigarette commercial included).

This is the fourth of four clips I am sharing from the Super Bowl III broadcast. 

It is 4 minutes, 29 seconds long.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 23, 2010

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2010

I can sum this up in short order. 

It’s simple.

Not that anything I say will make any difference to my leftist brethren, mind you. (I don’t expect it to).  I’m a conservative, so any policy position I support will confirm in the suspicious minds of the tolerant class that I am motivated by sinister motives.

Because true compassion is not possible from a conservative – only conniving manipulations devised to feed fat cat wallets at the expense of the everyday American – I am to be considered any one (if not all) of the following: homophone, xenophobe, sexist, racist, intolerant and bigoted. (Thank you Dennis Prager for the list).

What else could explain it?

Only embittered, child-eating, puppy punching, gun-wielding, Neanderthal beasts who enjoy putting butterflies in the microwave to watch them explode, or feed Alka Seltzer tablets to baby ducks, can really support conservative positions. It’s simply not possible to support such things as traditional marriage, gun ownership and less-intrusive government without being an intolerant, knuckle-dragging troglodyte.

Well, to the best of my ability, I’ll make this catastrophically simple so even a caveman can understand it … or a liberal.

I am tremendously confident that I speak for the overwhelming vast majority of conservatives when I say that those of us who are proponents of a strong immigration policy (i.e., a strong anti-illegal alien policy) couldn’t care less about the skin tones, ethnicities or ancestral origins of the infiltrators.

Not a damn thing.

Do you hear?


Naturally, I can hear the screeching Leftocrat class call me a liar, pointing their fingers, proclaiming that folks like me would rather see illegal alien babies rotting in the gutters of our American cities than fork out any more tax dollars to feed them, clothe them and give them, at the very least, some old newspapers to wrap up in to stay warm.

Lib perceptions of how Conservatives think can be summed up in what Howard Dean famously said in 2005: “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”


Dean must’ve had someone well-disguised sneak into one of our meetings, because I’m not sure how he found out. It’s only a matter of time before the Dems find out about our “My Little Swastika” line of stuffed animals and snack cakes.

I’ve said this before, and I will say it until I am Massachusetts-blue in the face: There is nothing less relevant to me than one’s race or ethnicity.

But that’s not what some of the big boys on the Left believe.

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the genius behind the Daily Kos, truly believes, for instance, that because we on the right are for securing our borders and cracking down on illegals, we obviously “hate brown people.”


Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, a Democratic strategist and founder of the left-wing blog “The Daily Kos,” told reporters Thursday that “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation sponsored by Rep. Luiz Gutierrez (D-Ill.) — which would provide a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens — has a good shot at passage this year.

But Moulitsas said that “teabaggers” and Republicans who “hate brown people” would try to push back against it.

“I think the votes want to be there in the Senate — I think the House is fairly solid — I think the votes want to be there,” he said of an immigration bill’s chances, “but you have this growing ‘teabagger’ movement that is going to be pushing very hard from the other side.”

There’s that word again … “teabagger.”

Not that the word is meant in the pejorative sense or anything.

He and Roger Ebert ought to play mahjong.

The fact is, the people who come into America illegally from the country south of the Rio Grande could be pasty, white-skinned, blonde-haired, hazel-eyed English-speakers who look like they just came from summer camp in the North of Ireland, and conservatives like me would still feel the same exact way about them – that they have no business being here, and they need to go about the process of entering (and eventually staying) in the country legally. It has absolutely nothing to do with “hating brown people.”

It’s about national security, economic stability, controlling crime, and making America a better place for her citizens and those who wish to come here the right way.

My Lord, can liberals ever get off the race and ethnicity thing?


Incidentally, there already exists a “pathway to citizenship” … the same one my ancestors followed: the law.

wordpress statistics

Posted in illegal immigration, Racism, Values | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2010

I’m actually surprised that some inventive young Obamacrat didn’t try to devise a way to put together a bailout package for Air America. I can’t help but wonder why someone from the “hope and change” wing of Obama’s Big-Box-O-Government didn’t just save or create jobs at the ever-struggling lib network using some of that stimulus money. After all, the spendulous package has already saved or created billions and billions of jobs in all fifty-eight states. What’s one more company?

Not that Air America ever had too many listeners who weren’t bedridden paraplegics without the ability to get up and change the channel, or dope-deadened change-the-world types who couldn’t discern bad radio from Cheese Whiz, but the post Al Franken/Rachel Maddow era took the scarcely patronized liberal radio network from rock bottom to catastrophically subterranean.

The death of Air America – like the demise of Pauly Shore or the release of Godfather Part III – is leaving the nation with more questions than answers, like: “Does this shirt make me look fat?” and “Did I leave the light on downstairs?”

From Fox News:

Air America Radio, a progressive radio network that once aired commentary from Al Franken and Rachel Maddow, said Thursday it is shutting down immediately.

The company founded in April 2004 said it ceased airing new programs Thursday afternoon and will soon file to be liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. It began broadcasting reruns of programs and would end those as well Monday night.

Air America said 10 consecutive quarters of declining ad revenue and the difficulty of making money on the Internet contributed to its financial woes.

“The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America’s business. This past year has seen a `perfect storm’ in the media industry generally,” the company said in a statement on its Web site.

The network had some 100 radio outlets nationwide.

Franken, a Democrat, hosted his own show from 2004 to 2007 before going on to become a U.S. senator from Minnesota last year after a close election. Maddow went on to host her own TV show on MSNBC.

The “difficult economic environment,” oddly enough, seems to have been less of a problem – if any at all – for conservative talk radio. In fact, many right-minded raconteurs have actually thrived while the “perfect storm” took its toll elsewhere in media.

And to be perfectly honest, who needs a radio network to reinforce leftist values when there are already newspapers, television, music, motion pictures, academia and Manhattan to drive the point home?

Rest in pieces, Air America.

Oh, somewhere in this great big world, the sun is shining bright,
Radios are playing somewhere with talkers from the right,
And somewhere folks are listening, and at home, in cars, in parks;
But there is no joy in Leftville — Air America has gone dark.

wordpress statistics

Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2010


They couldn’t have found a better picture for Mr. Giggles?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2010

When you’re on the left, and you’re President of the United States, and your perceived ability to save human kind from itself by virtue of your existence has faded like belief in the Tooth Fairy, and only one year into what was to be a magical Messianic Age is the cold hard reality that America is not nearly as gullible as you had thought (or hoped), and when even the persistently annoying Marxist agenda-peddler Paul Krugman of the New York Times is slinging daggers at you, it may be time to re-evaluate.

Krugman, like other lefties, is caught in the whirlwind of his own tizzy-fit, anguished and frazzled, woebegone and farklempt, devastated and relegating himself to the painful truth that President Obama is not the one we’ve been waiting for. On that score, Krugman and I can agree – but his is a disappointment in the fact that Obama has not been able to yank the nation into the periphery of common sense, where the far left lives. His disenchantment is in the reality that the brilliant rhetoric-huckster from the golden campaign-trail days has been replaced by an over-teleprompted, over-exposed, over-rated political laggard without a scintilla of executive experience and no idea how to lead.

The stimulus bill wasn’t big enough. The President didn’t blame George Bush enough. The banks got off too easy. Blah, blah, blah …

His – *gulp* – doubts are being confirmed.

He writes:

Health care reform — which is crucial for millions of Americans — hangs in the balance. Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill, which isn’t what they wanted but is vastly better than nothing. And what we get from the great progressive hope, the man who was offering hope and change, is this:

“I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don’t, then our budgets are going to blow up and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill. Now I think there’s some things in there that people don’t like and legitimately don’t like.”

In short, “Run away, run away”!

Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

I’ll reiterate that there isn’t a chance in hell that House Democrats sign onto the Senate version of Obamacare – or “LeftCare,” as talk show host Dennis Prager calls it. To Krugman, and others of the far leftist creed, House Dems need to summon the courage to be able to awaken the frightened inner socialist within – their conscience, he would say – forget about Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, and do what’s right for the American people. To Krugman, doing something is better than doing nothing – vastly better, he says.

And if it all can be blamed on George W. Bush, all the better.

But simply “doing something” for the sake of doing something is precisely what 52.7% of Americans did in November, 2008 by electing the enormously under qualified and unmistakably overwhelmed candidate for the world’s most important elective office.

A year and a day into the Messianic Age, it’s all worked out so wonderfully, hasn’t it, Paul?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, health care, leftism | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2010

Brooklyn's own Steve Pulwers

Many of America’s seniors are among our most vulnerable citizens. Many are defenseless against the ravages of violent crime. Stories of physical attacks perpetrated on the elderly can be disturbing and frightening. One can only begin to try and understand how someone could assault an eighty-three year old man over something like a parking space.

Think about that for a moment – the notion of beating on an eighty-three year old man over a lousy parking space.

Even in a city like New York, where parking spaces are coveted more than gold bricks, pounding an old man with an object like a metal steering wheel lock seems way over the top.

But let’s say, for instance, the eighty-three year old man was not the victim , but rather, the attacker.

And just to add a little spice to this story, let’s the say the victim was, too, an elderly man.

And to make it even more interesting, let’s say the victim was 99 years old.

What would you think then?

Probably that you must be in Brooklyn, New York.

From the New York Post:

Call ’em the fighting fogies.

An angry 83-year-old brawler beat a 99-year-old man old with a metal steering-wheel lock in Brooklyn in a fight over parking, authorities said yesterday.

The geriatric dust-up happened at 2:10 p.m. Monday across the street from Maimonides Hospital in Borough Park, when Gersh Gofman, 83, of Sheepshead Bay, pulled his car in front of the driveway outside Steve Pulwers’ house. Pulwers, who’s just two months shy of 100 and lives above a doctor’s office, said he was putting out the trash and knocked on Gofman’s window when the doctor returned for an emergency call and couldn’t get into the driveway.

“The doctor honked the horn, one, two, three, four times,” Pulwers told The Post. “I say, ‘Gentleman, the doctor wants to go into the garage.’ He did not answer. He then got out and takes a metal tool and hits me. He knocked me to the ground.”

Pulwers, a retired Manischewitz wine-factory employee, said Gofman pinned him to the ground with his knees. The near-centenarian said he was helpless, and tried to use his coat to defend himself.

“I hit him in the leg with my coat like a little fly,” he said.

Gofman, who hadn’t said a word up to that point, then threatened Pulwers in Russian.

“He said he was going to send somebody to cut off my balls,” Pulwers said.

That’s 182 years of raw, untamed, unbridaled manhood scuffling in the street like that.

All Pulwers did was ask Gofman to move his car so the doctor could get into his driveway. I can only imagine what Gofman would do if he were asked to remove his hat in a movie theater. Shove an ice pick in someone’s eye?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard an old man threaten to cut off the balls of another old man.

I just never seem to be around when these types of things happen.

Mr. Pulwers must be in extraordinary shape. He was born four years before World War I, was knocked to the sidewalk, pinned down by a mad Russian (himself born two years before the Stock Market Crash of 1929), and apparently is none the worse for it, save for a few bruises.

I suppose if thug geezers are going to throw down in the street, where else to do it but in front of a hospital?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2010

Call me crazy, but aren’t all people alive hours before they die?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010

From the “Fancy That” file …

The religion of peace is wrapping its ever-loving, all-inclusive arms around the dregs of American society and inviting them to blow up infidels. According to a new Senate report, it turns out that a number of ex-convicts who saw the light and converted to Islam while behind bars in American prisons have made the most out of their post-incarceration lives by going to Yemen and trying to become new Al Qaeda team members.

(But don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with Islam).

Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News writes:

The focus on ex-cons was part of an intensified effort by Al Qaeda to involve Americans who could more easily slip through security and pose a “significant threat” to carry out attacks in the U.S., said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

“These Americans are not necessarily of Arab or South Asian descent” but “include individuals who converted to Islam in prison,” Kerry said in a foreword to the report by his committee.

As many as 36 of the ex-cons, nearly half from New York, were believed to be in Yemen, and U.S. counterterror officials were on “heightened alert because of the potential threat from extremists carrying American passports,” the report said.

The FBI and CIA were also concerned about a separate group of fewer than 10 Americans without criminal records who went to Yemen, converted to Islam and married Yemeni women to be allowed to remain in the country.

The report quoted a U.S. official who described the smaller group as “blond-haired, blue eyed-types” who fit the profile of Americans wanted by Al Qaeda for terror missions.

So Al Qaeda is racially profiling?


Most interesting (and painfully typical of those who live in Leftsville) is this post from a blogger at the Daily News website called hjo4:

When you keep people disenfranchised, placing them in prison, the only (thing) that’s being done is that we’re creating Home grown terrorist. I often wondered what would America’s reaction be when her own citizens became suicide bombers, I guess we’ll find out.

So, according to hjo4, imprisoning people – which disenfranchises them – transforms these individuals into home-grown terrorists.

In short, we are to blame.

We keep people disenfranchised.

By coming down hard on larcenists, thieves and embezzlers, we alienate them. By laying down the law with child abusers, sexual deviants and violent miscreants, we make felons feel terrible about themselves. By throwing murderers and rapists behind bars, we shackle the souls within.

Where has the self-esteem inside our nation’s prisons gone?

This is one reason why the closing of Guantanamo Bay won’t be happening anytime soon, despite President Obama’s waffle-in-the-sky dreams of eradicating everything George W. Bush.

Real life has a way of intruding on the dreams of even the most idealistic water walkers.

But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Islam. What about all of those abortion clinic bombers?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010

This little ditty has been making its way across the blogosphere since Tuesday night. 

I had to chime in. 

Movie critic, and renouned political thinker, Roger Ebert “tweeted” the following last night after Scott Brown’s sensational victory in Massachusetts: 


If there is a more articulate, compelling movie reviewer offering his unique take on current affairs, I am not aware of it.

No wonder he is asked to give his opinion.

Such insight.  A mental Goliath if ever there was one. A virtuoso of stimulating prose. A wordsmith of the highest order.

Here’s a better tweet: 

Teddy to Mary Jo Kopechne: “F- -k You.”


wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010

The dancing in the streets has subsided, the sun has risen on a brand new day, the reality has sunken in, and the Democrat supermajority is history. The morning after the racist, homophobe from the Bay State snagged the empty Senate seat left behind by a half-century of Teddy, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – and, indeed, all of America – is poised to move into uncharted, post-Kennedy territory.

It’s a strange new world.

Regardless of what the spinsters on the Left say; despite the tripe that’ll fly from the mouths of Obamacrat and pundit alike; no matter what the apologists and disciples hawk, this most definitely was a referendum on the Obama administration. Indeed, this was a national election. This was an indictment of Obamacrat leftism. This was a huge smackback in the face of the President and his vastly unpopular, radical initiative of health care reform.

Without a heavy diet of hallucinogens, there is simply no other way to spin it.

Scott Brown, a Republican, is Massachusetts’s next Senator – only weeks removed from being down by double-digits in the polls against the contemptible Leftocrat, Martha Coakley – but he is, more importantly, this nation’s symbol of how peaceful revolutions are conducted. (What a difference one year makes). What was, by any stretch of the imagination, an impossibility, is now a shocking reality. The idea that a Republican would replace Ted Kennedy in a state where left is center, center is right, and right is Hitler, is unthinkable.

The fact is, the atrocity that is Barack Obama’s health care reform took a big hit last night.

But don’t worry. That won’t stop Dems from quickly regrouping and trying to figure out other subversive, dishonest and underhanded ways to get health care done, despite the wishes of the American people; despite the glaring message sent to Washington last night with the election of Scott Brown; despite the deposing of Democrat governors in New Jersey and Virginia; despite disastrous poll numbers.

They still know best … and they’ll tell you so.

Dems still have two words up their sleeves: Nuclear Option.

A few hours before Brown was declared the winner, Trish Turner at Fox News wrote:

A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the “nuclear option” if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate election.

Calling the state’s special election “an uphill battle to put it mildly,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said “there are options to still pursue health care” should Democrat Martha Coakley lose to Brown.

Well, Coakley did lose to Brown, and don’t think for a single moment that some donkeys aren’t banging their skulls together trying to figure out a way to go nuclear.

…Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as “reconciliation,” a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with just a 51-vote majority.

“We could go to something called ‘reconciliation’, which is in the weeds procedurally, but would allow us to modify that health care bill by a different process that doesn’t require 60 votes, only a majority,” Durbin said. “So that is one possibility there.”

But other Democrats are saying it would be political suicide to move forward and not recognize that last night’s victory by Brown was, indeed, a referendum on not only ObamaCare but on how the government operates.

Susan Davis at the Wall Street Journal writes:

Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb is calling for a time-out on the health care overhaul until Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown is seated following his upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.

Calling the race “a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process” Webb said Democrats need to hold off on further action until Brown is formally sworn in to the chamber.

“It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated,” he said.

The chances that the House will simply go along with the Senate version of the bill is on par with wishing for world peace or a Chicago Cubs World Series appearance.

It just isn’t going to happen.

Congressman Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts said it best: “If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill.”

Last night’s stunning win for Brown will send enough Dems scrambling to the railings of the good ship ObamaCare to stop the bill in its tracks, despite the bloviations of Madame Speaker. Nancy Pelosi, of course, has pledged to move forward, no matter what – through typhoon, flood and botox – to make sure a health care bill passes as soon as humanly possible.

But even Congressman Barney Frank has caught a whiff from the political coffee pot:

“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. “

Sometimes, even Democrats can read the writing on the wall.

Some of them anyway.

It speaks volumes that Democrats consider themselves defeated, even with 59 Seante seats. The Obamacrat agenda is so radical, so out-of-touch with America, they know only a supermajority could ever push it through.

And that says it all.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Elections, health care, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010




The next Senator from Massachusetts!

Posted in Elections | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010

As Democrats shiver in their political moccasins anticipating what will be a devastating loss in Massachusetts should the Republican, Scott Brown, seize Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat later today, the real issue of what will happen to health care reform without a donkey supermajority looms large. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vows that a health care bill will pass no matter what happens, including a Brown victory, others are not so sure – or arrogant.

Democrat congressman Anthony Weiner from New York has been as honest as anyone in understanding how crushing of a defeat it will be for his party – and health care reform – should the detestable Martha Coakley lose to Scott.

On today’s edition of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, Weiner had the following exchange with one of the panel members:

Panel Guy: Let’s say, for argument’s sake, she loses. Let’s just assume that for a moment. What happens to health care? We’ve heard that, perhaps, the Senate will ask the House to sign the Senate bill as is. What’s the next move if you only have 59 senators?

Weiner: I think you could make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead.

Panel Guy: Really?

Weiner: Yeah … I think it’s going to be very hard to ask us in the House to take the Senate bill when everyone acknowledges it was a worse bill. Everyone said the only reason we were passing the Senate bill was to move the ball forward.

I happen to agree with Weiner on this one – I just don’t think there’s a Hagen Dazs chance in Hades for the Senate version of ObamaCrap to meet with House approval.

Dems may, indeed, attempt to come up with something through reconciliation, but the process is an arduous one. The already rapidly declining shelf life of health care reform may long have run out by then.

H/T to RealClearPolitics.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010

Actually, Barack Obama is very transparent. There’s really nothing cryptic or mysterious about him – except maybe his college transcripts. He is a floundering leftist without a single intelligible plan (other than punishing achievement and the free market), without a single accomplishment to speak of, and void of any sense of what it means to be Commander-In-Chief.

And those are his strengths.

His first year in office has been a case study in impotence and infirmity. Still, he is driven by an enormously overpowering, yet completely translucent, conceit. He’s grossly misread the American people, taking them for fools, assuming that his mere existence would be more than enough to push through his radical leftist agenda. But other than catapulting America’s deficits to unseen levels, he has nothing to show for his first year other than his flair for downplaying the importance of national security, and a record-setting number of rounds of golf.

President Obama knows that his big and bold plans for transforming America aren’t popular. He sees growing dissatisfaction and anger spreading across the country. But part of him truly cannot believe that his plummeting poll numbers have anything to do with him specifically. He is convinced the American people simply don’t grasp the reality of the situation (as he sees it), namely that he inherited so many catastrophic problems from his predecessor – perhaps the worst any President has ever inherited at anytime in history – that even his messianic skills aren’t sufficient to the task. Thus, he has abandoned his pie-in-the-sky, messianic aspirations (for now) and has fallen back into a posture of predictable, transparent desperation.

When all else fails, pull out the old standby: the anti-capitalist card.

Let’s get populist. Let’s go after greed:

Mike Allen at the Politico writes:

Reflecting his new tone, Obama last week announced a new fee on big banks by vowing, “We want our money back, and we’re going to get it.”. At a House Democratic retreat a few hours later, he said leaders need to be “fighting for the American people with the same sense of urgency that they feel in their own lives.”

In his weekly address on Saturday, he declared: “We’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run.” Saluting Martin Luther King Jr. in remarks to a Baptist congregation the next day, Obama railed against “an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise.”

I hate to use a hackneyed phrase, but you cannot make this stuff up. Deficits have never been higher. Unemployment has gotten worse under this President. The President is on a course to spend this nation into near financial oblivion for generations to come – and wants to add to it with his proposed government takeover of health care – and yet, he whines and cries about Wall Street taking the money and running?

What? Is he serious?

Who takes more money out of the pockets of Americans than the federal government?

Yes, Americans want their money back – but not back in the hands of the unaccountable, irresponsible, expansion-happy feds. How dare Barack Obama talk about an era of “greed and irresponsibility” when it is our government, under Bam, spending and spending unheard of amounts of money, putting future generations on the hook. 

Can anything be more transparent than big government liberalism and the games leftists play?

Sure, blame Wall Street. It’ll strike an emotional chord with those who have been raised to be class warriors – those weaned on modern liberalism’s teet. After all, it sounds good to go after big executives, CEOs, rich people and other selfish pinchfists. Go ahead and blame corporate America. It sounds so right to slam big companies. They don’t care about the “little guy.” They only care about fattening up their highly-paid cats at the common man’s expense. Why not blame greed itself? It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Especially when a bend-over-and-grab-the-ankles-for-the-big-unions President says it.

At the rally for (candidate for Massachusetts Senator, Martha) Coakley, (President Obama) added: “Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty.”

Good God, Mr. President, is that really the best you’ve got?

“Bankers have plenty?”

What is he? In an eighth grade debating class?

Blame money, capitalism, free markets, corporations, Wall Street or George W. Bush all you want, Bammy; you are the reason the Democrats are dissolving like a graham cracker in a bowl of milk … and the reason the next Senator from the State of Massachusetts will be the Republican, Scott Brown.

You’re damn right today’s election in Massachusetts is a referendum on this administration.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010

No, he didn’t say that a totalitarian dictator was among his favorite philosophers, as did his predecessor, Anita Dunn.

He wasn’t quite that colorful.

In fact, he was a bit disappointing, if not unoriginal. At least Anita Dunn, the former White House Communications Director, was interesting. Dan Pfeiffer (her replacement), on the other hand, was a yawn-inspiring, painfully predictable, obedient little Obamacrat. The page he took from the Bam-Bam playbook has been so referenced by now that only lint and frazzled fragments are left in its place.

Yet another shot has been fired by the White House – the post-partisan, unifying, free-speech-loving White House – at the Fox News Channel. Not only did the well-spoken Mr. Pfeiffer say that Fox News was not a traditional news organization, but that it would not be treated as equal to other news networks.

That’s right … a spokesman for the White House (i.e., the President of the United States) has openly declared that they will treat a free-market, free-press news organization differently from others because it doesn’t adhere to this administration’s concept of a “traditional news” outfit.

David A. Patten at NewsMax writes:

The remarks by Dan Pfeiffer, who recently replaced Anita Dunn as the White House communications director, indicate that the administration has no plans to back off its strident anti-Fox News rhetoric.

Pfeiffer told The New York Times: “They have a point of view; that point of view pervades the entire network.”

He added that the Obama administration has no intention of treating Fox News equally.

“We don’t feel the obligation to treat them like we would treat a CNN, or an ABC, or an NBC, or a traditional news organization, but there are times when we believe it makes sense to communicate with them,” Pfeiffer told the Times.

Pfeiffer confirmed that the confrontational approach favored by Dunn, who labeled Fox News a “wing of the Republican Party,” will continue.

In response, a Fox News spokesperson told The “Obviously new to his position, Dan seems to be intent upon repeating the mistakes of his predecessor … and we all remember how well that turned out.”

And if, for instance, Fox News were Obama ankle-grabbers, like MSNBC, would this even be an issue?

Remember, MSNBC is the home of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann – not exactly right-of-center traditionalists. If Fox News rolled over and played slut for this administration, like the New York Times, would anyone in the White House care how “traditional” the organization was?

It is the height of arrogance, the depths of treachery, the reality of the totalitarian instinct inherent in leftist thought that defines the power-grabbing Obamacrat regime. From their middle-of-the-night, break-neck congressional votes on unread legislation, to their behind-closed-doors, phony “transparency,” Dems are demonstrating why liberalism and liberty don’t mix.

Think about this … this is the White House, and thus the President – the man charged with preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States – waging war on an American news organization that does not tow the Leftocrat line.

Imagine a Republican White House pulling the same stunt against the liberal media. Think of the outrage that would ensue.

Of course, they’d be at war with the entirety of the mainstream media news complex at that point.

This anti-Fox News posture has been an ongoing thing since the dawn of the Messianic Age.

Frankly, the White House needs better material.


H/T to Weasel Zippers.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010

Hello, 9-1-1? I’d like to report a flood.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2010

Shonn Green's touchdown put the Jets up 17-7

I really ought to say something about yesterday’s New York Jets upset victory over the high-powered San Diego Chargers. I ought to be able to channel over thirty years of frustration and disappointment into a paragraph or two of pure literary euphoria. Yesterday’s 17-14 victory over a team that many predicted would eviscerate the upstart Jets is surely enough to warrant a mention, one would think. As a lifelong Jets fan, it seems not only appropriate, but necessary.

I’m not an effective sports commentator by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ll try.

Admittedly, like many “realists,” I thought the Jets mini miracle run would come to a decisive end in San Diego against an explosive Chargers team that many felt was Super Bowl-bound (including me). Naturally, I rooted my gluteus off for my Jets, wearing my Joe Namath throwback, screaming, cheering, fist-pumping, throwing my arms in the air, hurling my hat at the television on numerous occassions, praying for a miracle. I knocked over the chips, spilled my drink, paced the living-room during commercial breaks and burned more calories than I could have had I gone to the gym and ran the treadmill for five hours. The Chargers, after all, are a great team, exciting to watch, worthy of all the accolades they received this year. I don’t think that’s overstating it. They won eleven games in a row going into yesterday’s game and hadn’t scored less than twenty points in a game all season.

But those are just statistics, and there’s a reason why they play the games. Yesterday’s stunning upset of the AFC’s number two seed by a New York Jets team that boasts the league’s top running attack and top defense is definitely one for the scrapbook. It was one of the most memorable victories I can remember for this team; and while I’m not old enough to recall the Jets historic upset over the heavily favored Colts in Super Bowl III, I am old enough to be one of the millions of kids who worshipped at the altar of Joe Namath.

This was big.

Indeed, I remember the Jets victory over the Raiders in January, 1983 that won them a slot in the AFC Championship game against the dreaded Dolphins (a game they lost 14-0 in the heart-shattering “A. J. Duhe” game). Yesterday’s victory is certainly on par with that one.

I remember the 1998 Jets – a team I was sure was going all the way. After a 2-3 start that year, they won ten out of their last eleven contests, snagging the AFC East. They beat Jacksonville in the divisional round of the playoffs and then led the AFC Championship Game over Denver 10-0 at the half. (It was all down hill from there).

I remember the Jets beating these same San Diego Chargers in the 2004 Wild Card round when Nate Kaeding missed a 40-yard field goal in overtime, enabling the Jets to march down the field and win the game – the same Nate Kaeding who missed three field goals yesterday after making sixty-nine consecutive kicks from 40 yards or less. (The Jets went on to lose to the Steelers in overtime the following week, missing two field goals at the end of regulation that would have brought them to the AFC Championship game).

Yesterday’s win transformed the Jets from a team playing with “house money” to one worthy enough to be mentioned with the league’s big boys. They didn’t have anything handed to them, they didn’t “back in” because of a San Diego collapse, and they didn’t “luck out.” This was no fluke. It’s true that San Diego penalized themselves to death with a cavalcade of false start penalties, personal foul infractions, and sloppy play. It’s true that Phil Rivers, the great San Diego quarterback, seemed off-rhythm all game. It’s true that the Chargers, for some unknown reason, decided to play a more conservative game, attempting to establish a nonexistent running game.

But it was the Jets who, after being thoroughly outplayed in first half, and being down by only a touchdown at halftime, saw their top-rated defense take over. The Chargers, who had every advantage in the world going into this game, allowed the Jets to stick around long enough to seize control. Once the Jets grabbed it, they never gave it back. They kept Rivers off-balance, and never wavered from their pound-the-rock, ground-attack game plan. They didn’t panic. They stuck to what got them there.

Jets quarterback, Mark Sanchez

They were patient. They were good. And yes, I was shocked.

They went into San Diego and defied the odds, beating them on their own turf, in front of a fantastically enthusaistic crowd convinced that this was the Chargers’ year. Unfortunately for long-suffering Chargers fans, it wasn’t. Fortunately, for long-suffering Jets fans, the team is on the brink of the impossible.

My voice is hoarse from all the shouting. I even got food on my game jersey.

It was an amazing game and an impressive victory that I still cannot comprehend.

I promise you, I intend to enjoy this week of celebration, pontification, evaluation and anticipation leading up to the AFC Championship Game next Sunday. The Jets will face their tallest order yet when they face the mighty Indianapolis Colts – the number one seed in the AFC.

The Colts are that good.

The Jets can certainly thank the Indianapolis Colts for the opportunity to play them next week. It was the Colts’ generous Christmas gift to the Jets in game 15 that kept the Jets alive for an unlikely playoff spot – namely “laying down” for the Jets by resting almost all of their starters in the third quarter, including the incomperable Peyton Manning, and affording the Jets the opportunity to post a win. The Colts only did it to rest their core and avoid needless injuries, having already clinched a playoff berth. (It didn’t hurt that the fates were on the side of the Jets when every team that needed to lose that week did).

But this is no longer “house money.”

Yes, this is unquestionably the most unlikely of playoff runs. It is as unexpected as any post-season push I can remember – even the amazing New York Giants run of two years ago. I wouldn’t have bet anything on God’s green earth that the Jets would be playing in the AFC Championship Game, nor would anyone else with a working brain.

But they are.

I don’t care that they were a camel’s eyelash from being eliminated from playoff contention after their embarrassing loss to the Atlanta Falcons in Game 14. I don’t care that the Indianapolis Colts “laid down” for the Jets in Game 15 by resting all their starters, allowing the Jets to beat them. I couldn’t care less that the Cincinnati Bengals didn’t play “all out” in Game 16, enabling the Jets to destroy them.

None of that matters now.

They’ve beaten Cincinnati and San Diego on the road thus far in the playoffs. Sixty minutes of football stand between them and the unthinkable – Super Bowl XLIV.

So, from this Jets fan to the mighty, mighty Colts … thank you for the opportunity. I mean that.

The real question is … Can the Jets actually beat the Colts in Indianapolis?

The answer … Damn right they can.

wordpress statistics

Posted in New York Jets | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2010

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2010

Sometimes, things just speak for themselves – like Hillary Clinton in a bathing suit or ketchup and jelly sandwiches. Sometimes the clever interjections and observations of even the most entertaining wordsmiths are unnecessary. Sometimes, things can just stand on their own.

Such is the case when a liberal fishwrap publishes commentary that asserts a mass murderer could win elective office over one of its own.

That’s when you know things aren’t so good in Honeymoon Haven.

The UK Guardian is as leftist as the management of the New York Mets baseball team is embarrassing. (If you don’t know baseball, trust me. If you do … right?)

Check out this web page:

Sure, George W. Bush was regularly compared to Adolf Hitler, but I don’t think even the most pot-soaked, sandal-wearing, maggot-infested, retro-hippie peace freak would have said that Hitler could beat him in an election … even with a Florida recount.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Elections, Everything Else, Obama Bonehead, politics, Polls | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2010

It was supposed to be all about doing it for “Teddy.”

“This is the way Teddy would have wanted it,” we heard.

“This is Teddy’s health care bill,” they said.

“Do It For Him!” they screamed

By virtue of the fact that Chappaquiddick Teddy passed away last year, the health care reform bill – call it ObamaCare, PelosiCare, ReidCare, horse excrement, whatever – was magically supposed to be a voter favorite, a given, an automatic, “One More For Teddy!

How sentimental.

Unfortunately for Dems, truth has a way of creeping in and swiping the marshmallows from the Count Chocula box.

After being schooled in the cold-hard reality that the open Massachusetts Senate seat is not “Teddy’s Seat,” but rather the People’s Seat, Dems are being slapped across the chops with the latest poll numbers coming from the bluer-than-blue Bay State; and it doesn’t look too donkey-friendly right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may think that Republican momentum shifts are a bunch of hyperbole, but the poor lady’s caboose has once again gone chug-chug-chugging around the bend.

Only a little better than one-third of likely Massachusetts voters say they support Obamacare. In fact, less than half say they even support the job the President is doing.

Terence P. Jeffrey, Chief Editor of CNS News writes:

Only 36 percent of the Massachusetts residents who say they are likely to vote in the special U.S. Senate election that will take place in that state on Tuesday say they support the national health-care plan being pushed by President Barack Obama and only 48 percent say they approve of the job Obama is doing as president.

A 51-percent majority of those likely to vote in Tuesday’s special election say they oppose Obama’s health-care plan.

In Massachusetts?

It still astounds me … What exactly were those who supported Barack Obama expecting? It isn’t as if his unabashed leftist agenda wasn’t spelled out in big bold letters and pinned to his sleeve during the nearly two years of campaigning he did prior to his anointment. It isn’t as if his big government, anti-free market approach would have been a surprise to anyone who was even casually paying attention. What is it that makes Bammy increasingly more distasteful to libs (and other children) who flipped the lever for him fourteen months ago? Is he not leftist enough? Is he too conservative? Does his shirt make him look too fat? Is his waffle-centric agenda too much for the pancake and French toast set?

The same poll said that those who said they were likely to vote in Tuesday’s election favored Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown over Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, 50 percent to 46 percent.

President Obama is scheduled to appear with Coakley today at a campaign event.

(I thought Dems wanted to win this one).

On one hand, to all of us who revere and respect the Constitution, this all sounds quite encouraging. The polls are overwhelmingly showing that Obama and his leftist game-plan is not flying with the American public. The notion that there might actually be a Republican Senator from Massachusetts in two days is about as mind-blowing as Joe Biden completing his sentences.

But in reality, it’s difficult to muster a whole lot of positivity. Keep in mind, today’s Democrat brand isn’t your typical, run-of-the-mill, big government variety. This is a new, screw-our-electorate-and-the-Constitution-at-all-costs kind-of-Democrat – a more frightening, more destructive, more power-mad hybrid than any before them.

Honestly, have Democrats given any indication whatsoever that they will, in any way, take into consideration what their consituents want? While all polls show that Americans everywhere do not want this health care bill to pass, none of that matters to the totalitarians-in-waiting.

If, for instance, polls showed that 100% of likely voters opposed health care, it still wouldn’t matter because Democrats are sure they know what’s best for you. Scott Brown could very well win that Massachusetts race on Tuesday, but so what? Will that stop Democrats from trying to finagle a way, no matter how far-reaching or outlandish, to get this monstrosity of a health care bill passed? Already anticipating Coakley’s defeat on Tuesday, they’re already threatening to follow the path of reconciliation, where a mere 51% of the vote will be sufficient to get something to President Obama’s desk.

Teddy may be rolling over in his grave, but only because Dems aren’t being slimy enough.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, health care, politics, Polls | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2010

Beats computer modeling every time. 

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2010

The horrific scenes of chaos and destruction coming from Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake are as disturbing as any I’ve seen a long time. The country has descended into total bedlam. Reports of violent gangs running wild are abundant. Grizzly accounts of corpses lining the streets as far as the eye can see have become commonplace. No one knows who is in charge. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are in immediate need of assistance, unable to get the help they require.

Words like “catastrophe” and “unspeakable” fall short.

The humanitarian response has been overwhelming. But the airport there is small and dangerously congested. There are at least a dozen airplanes full of supplies sitting on the tarmac with many more waiting on the grass with nowhere to go. There is no reliably functioning communications system and no real idea on how to coordinate the distribution of badly needed supplies.

The people of Haiti are desperate. It is difficult to imagine the situation there getting any worse.

My heart is breaking.

But imagine for a moment a Republican was in the White House. Imagine George W. Bush being the Chief Executive while the enormous difficulties in getting relief to Haiti’s beleaguered citizens were taking place. (Hint: Think about how the Left reacted to President Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina).

Talk show host Mark Levin – the Great One – on his radio program Friday evening put it this way:

It needs to be said, and you know it … If Ronald Reagan were President, or Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford, or either of the Bushes, this would be an issue of race and politics … It would be said we’re not doing enough, no matter how much we do, no matter how difficult the circumstances, it would be said we’re not doing enough; it would be politicized; it would be called racism, because that’s exactly what happened with (Hurricane) Katrina.

No matter how much supplies we sent, no matter how much military went down there, it never mattered. And Bush, foolishly, apologized. And he’s still attacked for it.

Meanwhile, in Haiti – before we know exactly what’s going on down there – we’re told that the job we’re doing is terrific.

Well, let me say this … the men and women who are actually doing the work are terrific. But why is it that if supplies are stuck at the airport, that’s not Obama’s fault, but it would have been Bush’s fault?

I’ll tell you why.

Because the media in this country is so bastardized that they will take facts and twist them any way they wish to. And we’ll be told to focus –and focus only – on the desperate condition of the Haitians. Fair enough. But during Katrina, half the focus was on politics was it not?

I don’t hear Charles Rangel, or John Conyers, or Jesse Jackson, or Not-so Sharpton. I don’t hear them. I don’t see the liberal media, the anchors, going on and on about the failures of American assistance and leadership at the top.

And you won’t.

And I might add, you shouldn’t.

After Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, it was utterly reprehensible to hear many claim that George W. Bush’s supposed laxidasical response had anything to do with the fact that predominantly black areas of New Orleans were hit particularly hard. Bush didn’t just react slowly to the tragedy, they groaned; it was his prejudism against blacks that caused more damage and loss of life than there needed to be. He simply didn’t respond with the same urgency he would have afforded primarily white populations, they exclaimed. 

Remember that load of steaming excrement?

One positive to come out of all this is the fact that it may be much easier now to predict when an earthquake is on the way.


Check the thermostat.

Actor Danny Glover – activist, certifiable idiot – says that the Haitian earthquake was the result of man’s inability to deal with global warming … or climate change … or whatever it’s being called this month.


It must’ve been one of the six remaining polar bears known to still exist falling off one of those breakaway blocks of melting ice in the Arctic, hitting the rapidly warming waters with such ferocity that it set off a chain reaction that (naturally) led to the shifting of the earth’s tectonic plates.

Makes sense.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, global climate change, Global Warming, Natural Disaster, politics, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2010

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2010

There are times when I do, in fact, wonder if medical marijuana has been approved for members of Congress on the sly. If so, Democrats must be suffering from every illness under the sun because all of them are over-medicating. In Lib-world, everyone is the walrus. 

Heading up the “Glazed Eyes and Empty Head” list is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who truly sounds as if she’s just been dumped out on the street by the Twinkie Truck – or that she may be in need of better pot. Today, she said that whatever talk there is of Republican “momentum” heading into the midterm elections later this year is nothing but “hype and hyperbole.” 

Jordan Fabian of The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room writes: 

In a fundraising e-mail to Democratic supporters, Pelosi said that the Democratic agenda is moving the country forward and the Democrats toward victory this fall. 

“Republicans are in full blown ‘spin mode’ attacking the President and claiming he has lost support,” she wrote. “But that is just hype and hyperbole. You and I know better — together we are moving America forward.” 

Hype and hyperbole? 

Like, for instance, the promise that “earmarks” will be a thing of the past? Or the promise that debates on health care will be televised on C-Span? Or the assertion that the unemployment rate will not go above 8%? Or the lie that two million jobs were saved or created by Bammy’s Spendulous atrocity? 

Republican momentum is hyperbole? 

Every single poll is wrong?

Maybe Nancy isn’t inhaling and ought to.

Madame Speaker, do the names Bob McDonnel and Chris Christie have any meaning to you? And how’s that “Ted Kennedy” senate seat looking these days? 


wordpress statistics 

Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Nancy Pelosi, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2010

Because Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should, even cavemen smoke ’em.

Posted in Classic TV | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2010


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2010

Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, Liar

Clarification time …

What is with this White House? Is it necessary to be dishonest about everything? Is it just an ideological reflex? Is it a biological preinclination? Do they think that no one has the capability to check these things?

I know Rush Limbaugh is under fire for supposedly suggesting that people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. This disgusting lie was proffered by the greatest White House Press Secretary the human race has ever had the privilege to know, Robert Gibbs. According to him, in every crisis, there are people who will say “really stupid things,” and this time, Limbaugh was one of them.

But it is blatantly, provably untrue.

Rush Limbaugh never said people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. It was never suggested, implied or even hinted. What Limbaugh did say, however, was that people who really want to see help extended to Haiti should send aid through private charities, churches, or any number of non-government entities which, as he pointed out, have always been far more efficient and far more successful in disaster relief efforts than the feds.  Don’t count on government aid to do much of anything.

How on Earth can that be denied?

The inability of the federal government to handle finances with any degree of efficiency, accountability and responsibility also cannot be denied. This is an entity that has severely botched Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and has supposedly created or saved two million jobs – the overwhelming vast majority of which are government-based – by sending taxpayer dollars to phantom districts and zip codes.

And they’re to be trusted to handle disaster relief?

RUSH: We’re going to start in Raleigh, North Carolina. Justin you’re first today. Great to have you with us.

JUSTIN: Mega Rush Baby dittos. My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to —

RUSH: Yeah.

JUSTIN: — to direct you how to do so. If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the page and —

RUSH: Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?


RUSH: Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.

JUSTIN: Absolutely.

RUSH: Absolutely right.

JUSTIN: That’s the point.

RUSH: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the US income tax.

JUSTIN: Rush, my mother was going to be on a missionary trip. She was going to leave at 4:30 this morning to go to Haiti with our church.

RUSH: That’s another point, too. Churches —

JUSTIN: No government money, Rush.

RUSH: Exactly right. Look, there are people that do charitable work every day in Haiti. It’s not as though — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it’s our fault. Reverend Wright, it’s our fault, there’s no excuse for such poverty when there’s a nation as rich as we are so close. There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around, and even if they did they’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. Nobody takes that approach down there because this has always been a country run by dictators and incompetent ones at that.

How is that unclear?

Where did Rush Limbaugh say that people should not give money to Haiti?

If people are genuinely moved to boost relief efforts, would they best be served to see their contributions (i.e., tax dollars) make it to Haiti via the United States federal government on their behalf? Is there anyone who believes that US Government donations wouldn’t be turned over directly to corrupt Haitian politicians and officials? Who will be held accountable for what happens to our tax dollars? Remember that Haiti was a man-made disaster before the earthquake flattened it. How much of the money filtered through the federal government would find its way into hungry politician pockets instead of the millions who really need it?

Despite Obamacrat thinking, Americans are the most generous people in the world. They will always come to the aid of those in need. The government need not siphon its citizens for unaccountable, mismanaged funds.

Recall yesterday, I wrote:

This is not to suggest that the United States should not call on its citizens to come to the aid of a nation that has been incalculably overwhelmed by such a disaster. The President, in fact, handled his response to this earthquake perfectly fine. I am of the mind that citizens of the United States must come to the assistance of fellow human beings in a time such as this. The America that President keeps apologizing for will step up, as always, and do what’s right. That’s what the American people do, despite who is in charge. That isn’t the issue.

Note I said it is perfectly alright for the President to ask the people to donate to assist in relief efforts.

The people.

I never suggested the government was the right vehicle.

I did, however, say that Robert Gibbs was a liar. (Just reinforcing).

wordpress statistics

Posted in Natural Disaster, Obama Bonehead, Robert Gibbs, Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2010

The only thing transparent about this administration is its ongoing love affair with leftist doctrines and policies. The only thing open about this administration is the gaping wound in its credibility. Other than that, the Obama administration is a veritable smörgåsbord of back-room deals, closed-door negotiations, cloak-and-dagger proceedings and slight-of-hand governance. There is nothing this administration does above board, except assail conservatives, blame George W. Bush for all of humanity’s misfortunes, and apologize for the sins of America. Sure, Obama’s reaction to the tragedy in Haiti was swift and decisive, but let’s be clear: for Obama, it was a political win-win. The only way he could have screwed up America’s response to that would be to drop an atomic bomb on Port-au-Prince.

Here’s a delicious example of Obamacrat transparency, courtesy Bammy’s second-in-command …

Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to have a meeting today with the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board.

That meeting is closed to the press.

Whether or not a secret 4:00 AM cloture vote on Capitol Hill is scheduled to determine if future meetings of the Transparency Board will be open to the press is unclear at this time.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2010


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2010

Here’s a phrase I haven’t heard in a long time: Doomsday Clock.

Next to chia pets, seasons nine through twenty-one of The Simpsons, anything with Leonardo Dicaprio in it, and purple white-out, there is hardly anything more pointless to human existence than the Doomsday Clock. (Maybe Keith Olbermann).

Talk about a blast from the unwanted past.

I honestly haven’t thought about the Doomsday Clock for years. I had no idea it still existed.

When I read this story, it was like coming across a gas station with leaded gas, or discovering that my Crazy Uncle Hank with the bad breath and perpetually unzipped fly was still alive even though I thought he was crushed by a backhoe in 1986.

My impression was that attention on the Doomsday Clock long ago went the way of solid state televisions and metal Snack-Pack cans. The fact that anyone – even the most hysterical among us – would place any stock in, let alone care about, such a ridiculous, Chicken-little contraption is beyond pathetic. Even back in the day, when Ronald Reagan was supposed to lead all of humanity into a nuclear winter, I felt the whole concept of a Doomsday Clock was too stupid for words.

However, it not only still exists, it’s about to make a move.

The world waits.

From the Mail Online:

The minute hand of the famous Doomsday Clock will be moved at 3pm tomorrow afternoon, for the first time in two years. The timepiece in New York conveys how close humanity is to catastrophic destruction, which is represented by midnight.

It was created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1947, two years after the U.S dropped the first atomic bombs on Japan in World War II. It was originally set at seven minutes to midnight. The clock has been altered 18 times since then by the Bulletin’s scientific board. This now includes Professor Stephen Hawking and 18 other Nobel laureates. The latest recorded time was two minutes to midnight in 1953 as the Cold War heated up between the U.S and Soviet Union.

In 2007 it was wound on to five minutes to midnight, to reflect the failure to solve problems posed by nuclear weapons.

Today the public can watch the change for the first time via a live web feed. A spokesman said: ‘Factors influencing the latest Doomsday Clock change include international negotiations on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, expansion of civilian nuclear power, the possibilities of nuclear terrorism, and climate change.

Just last month environmentalists criticised the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, after leaders failed to reach any real consensus.

I can’t help but ponder … if the hands actually do strike midnight – which means “catastrophic destruction” – does that mean that the destruction has already happened, or that it is imminent?

If it’s already happened, then who would be there to actually turn the hands? And who would be paying attention at that point anyway? And if it’s imminent, what can humanity do about it anyway? After all, we’re talking catastrophic destruction here.

The way I see it … the expansion of civilian nuclear power is a good thing; and with global temperatures falling, which will, in turn, afford polar bears more breakaway blocks of ice to sit on, that ought to set the Doomsday Clock to more like 10:30 or so, wouldn’t you think? And what about President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize? The clock ought to read supper time after that one.

Incidentally, nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists are always a major concern and something to be taken very seriously. The only reason they would be more of a threat today than, say, a couple of years ago, is that the President of the United States is less interested in fighting the enemy and more focused on trying to make nice-nice with very bad people. In that respect, a few more years with Barack Obama at the helm could push the hands of the clock to a quarter past twelve.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Everything Else, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2010

President Obama, this morning

When the government of Iran slaughtered its own people on the streets of Teheran, the President of the United States said nothing. With troops on the ground in Afghanistan – and with the entire world watching to see how the United States would proceed in the “war on necessity” – the President of the United States waited … and waited … and waited. After the terrorist attack on Fort Hood, the President made sure to offer a “shout out” to a nonexistent Congressional Medal of Honor winner at the Tribal Nations Conference, as well as a bunch of thanks to various staffers, before ever mentioning the slaughter of thirteen innocents on American soil by an Islamo-facist. After the near-terrorist attack on Christmas Day, the President took three days to respond.

Not exactly stalwart leadership.

But as we’ve come to see, the President can move fast when the situation warrants it (in his mind) – maybe even faster than a “black man running from the cops,” as Georgetown Professor Michael Dyson put it.

Yesterday, for instance, it took the President only thirty-five minutes thirty-five minutes – to respond to the devastating earthquake that ravaged Haiti Tuesday. In fact, as of this writing – approximately 11:00AM, Wednesday morning – the President has just concluded public remarks about the tragedy.

He’s all over it.

This is not to say the President shouldn’t say anything. This is not to suggest that the United States should not call on its citizens to come to the aid of a nation that has been incalculably overwhelmed by such a disaster. The President, in fact, handled his response to this earthquake perfectly fine. I am of the mind that citizens of the United States must come to the assistance of fellow human beings in a time such as this. The America that President keeps apologizing for will step up, as always, and do what’s right. That’s what the American people do, despite who is in charge. That isn’t the issue.

I must ask … why does Barack Obama not treat the security of his own nation with the same seriousness and urgency that he does an earthquake? Why will he not stand up and speak out against the human evils that threaten his own country with the same fervor and assuredness he reserves for acts of nature? Why do acts of God and conservatives who defend the Constitution stir his passions more than acts of war against the United States?

Fair questions, no?

And incidentally, the word “tragedy” is the right word to use here. The President got it right. The earthquake in Haiti is a tragedy – unlike a terrorist attack, which is an act of evil. There is nothing more infuriating than hearing someone call a terrorist attack a “tragedy.”

So, okay, Mr. President … you promised “unwavering support” to the Haitian people in the aftermath of the earthquake there.


But how about showing a little “unwavering support” for your own nation?  How about convincing the American people that you are commited to defending this nation? How about not making matters of national secutiry appear like an annoyance to you? How about acting like a nearly-successful terrorist attack on American soil is actually more serious than finishing the back nine in Hawaii? How about behaving like a Commander-In-Chief?

That would be nice.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2010

On Sunday, I posted a piece in praise of CNN’s Jack Cafferty – commentator, curmudgeon, Bush-hater.

(I know, I know … I double-checked to see if any icicles had been reported as forming in hell).

Cafferty’s staunch opposition to “Bush’s War” is well known. A good portion of his past huffings, puffings and grumblings, you’ll recall, were directed toward the “war criminals” of the previous administration. Donald Rumsfeld, you’ll remember, was an “obnoxious jerk.” When Fox News’s Brit Hume interviewed then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Cafferty commented it was “a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde.”


To his credit, however, he had the gumption to lambaste the Obama administration for going back on campaign promises to televise debates on health care reform.

Said Cafferty:

How dare they? President Obama and Democratic leaders, have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate Conference Committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold “informal” – that’s another word for secret – negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.

Good for him.

Well, as unbelievable as this is going to sound – and after checking my vital signs – I have to tip my hat once again to Cafferty for calling it like it is.

This time, according to Mr. Happy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a “horrible woman.”

Said Mr. C:

Things are tough – very tough – for millions of American in this country, but you’d never know it watching the way Congress spends our tax money on themselves. CBS News has a stunning report on the all-expense paid trip of at least twenty members of Congress to the Copenhagen Climate Summit last month.

The bi-partisan delegation, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was so large, they needed three military jets, two 737s and a Gulfstream V. Some members of Congress brought along their spouses, their kids. There were also Senators and staff members who made the trip to Denmark – most of them, flying over commercial.

Pelosi refused to answer any questions about costs for this, or where they all stayed, even though she was the one who decided who went. Her office says only that it will “comply with disclosure requirements.”

It’s a disgrace.

The national unemployment rate is 10%. Employers cut more jobs than expected just last month. We got the numbers on Friday. People are suffering in this country.

California, Pelosi’s home state, is faced with a twenty-billion dollar budget deficit.

This nation’s hurting, but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a December trip to Copenhagen and then refuse to answer any questions about it.

What a horrible woman she is.

What he said.

Just another delectable slice of the post-partisan “hope and change” pie.

Thus far, without question, the best thing – the only thing – to come out of Obama’s Messianic Age is the ongoing exposure of the fraud of modern liberalism

… oh yeah, and the “Barack the Magic Negro” parody.

I invite Americans to keep watching. It’s only going to get  better.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Nancy Pelosi | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2010

What the?

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