Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for April, 2010


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 30, 2010

Et tu, Governor Perry?

The new Arizona illegal alien law that has twisted so many panties across the map will not be a good fit for the Lone Star State, says Texas Governor, Rick Perry. “I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas,” he said in a written statement.

Sometimes cold hard reality is a great clarifyer.

I have always been an admirer of Perry’s, but his “path to citizenship” posture – like George W. Bush’s – is wrong-minded and painfully aggravating. Most importantly, it won’t solve the problem.

Said the Governor:

“Texas has a rich history with Mexico, our largest trading partner, and we share more than 1,200 miles of border, more than any other state,” Perry said Thursday. “As the debate on immigration reform intensifies, the focus must remain on border security and the federal government’s failure to adequately protect our borders.

“Securing our border is a federal responsibility, but it is a Texas problem, and it must be addressed before comprehensive immigration reform is discussed.”

With all due respect to Mr. Perry – as I continue to rattle my head in bewilderment at the plethora of non sequiturs being proferred by opponents of the Arizona law – what on God’s green earth does America’s “rich history” with Mexico have to do with anything? What does our trading status with Mexico have to do with enforcing illegal immigration laws? What does any of that have to do with keeping illegals out of our country and deterring new ones from coming in?

I honestly don’t understand it.

Perry says the focus must remain on border security and the Fed’s inability to get the job done.

Okay, fine.

But how long is long enough? Washington has kicked the illegal-immigration can down the dusty road of voter-block appeasement time and time again. It was inevitable that the breaking point would be reached. Arizona lawmakers, along with Governor Jan Brewer, finally decided that if anything was actually going to get done, it had to happen at the state level.

And the vast majority of Arizonians – and, indeed, Americans – think it was the right thing to do.

God bless Arizona.

In the meantime, other states need to take notice.

Real deterrence to illegal immigration will only be accomplished by the type of law put into effect in Arizona in conjunction with enhanced border security.

Indeed, everyone agrees that securing the borders in an absolute must. But for many, the way to approach the illegal immigration problem is to secure the border first, then worry about the illegals that are alreday here at a later time.

It sounds nice on paper, but it isn’t much of a deterrent.

Deterrence is the key.

More potential illegal aliens will be dissauded if they believe that American law enforcement agencies are now making it their business to crack down inside the country. For illegals, it will be an obstacle they have not had to contend with in the past.

Historically, the main encumbrance for these law breakers was simply getting into the country. Once they found a way past whatever barriers there were – often times nothing more than a chain link fence – they were essentially home free. There existed no real effort to go after them. Whatever obstacles they had to face at the border was worth the trouble. Besides, how can a country’s immigration policy really be taken seriously when there exist “sanctuary cities?”

The fact is, no matter how much security is at the border – and believe me, more is obviously better –  it won’t stop people from finding ways to slither through.

It could ultimately prove far more successful to approach this from the inside out. Given that the Feds will spend their time polishing off slogans for bumper stickers instead of defending the border, individual states could – and should – begin passing their own illegal-immigration laws, à la Arizona,  that send the message that illegals are not welcome.

As for the illegal aliens that are already here, many will wind up deporting themselves … or going to a friendlier, more-accomodating state.

Watch the population of illegals go up dramatically in those states that do not pass an Arizona-style immigration law – including the great state of Texas.

wordpress statistics


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 30, 2010

Okay, enough is enough.

I’ve long since exhausted my reserve of tolerance for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. I’ve already gone into tolerance debt regarding the man and his weak-minded, poorly-articulated, do-nothing leadership of a party that should be running for an easy touchdown with a ball long ago fumbled by flailing Obamacrats.

I am no longer willing to dig into my “benefit of the doubt” bag.

I am tired of Michael Steele’s act.

It’s bad enough that in the past he has succumbed to breaking out the race card on behalf of his party. It’s embarrassing that he feels white Republicans are afraid of him. It’s sad that he could not stand up to D. L. Hughley’s assertion that the Republican National Convention was reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

(Is there anything liberals disagree with that does not resemble Nazi Germany?)

Apparently, Michael Steele cannot – or will not – make the very real distinction between immigrants and illegal aliens. It’s the same thinking that keeps the Left from being able to differentiate between health care and health insurance.

On CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, the exchange, in part, went like this:

BLITZER: As you know, the former Florida governor, Jeb Bush – Marco Rubio is running for the US Senate from Florida, another Republican – they’re among an increasing chorus of Republicans thinking, “Well, maybe the Arizona law is a mistake.” What does Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland say about that?

STEELE: (laughs) Well, Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, understands that the realities right now for the country, as reflected in Arizona and elsewhere, is that we, as a people, have to come to grips with this issue of immigration. We can no longer use it as a political football. We must keep in mind the families that are impacted by the lack of decision in this area. And the leadership has to confront what has always been the growing chorus of concern for the American people: this deal with border security and control. Let’s put that house in order and rest takes care of itself.

Someone really ought to inform the RNC Chair that this is not – repeat not – about immigration. 

Overwhelmingly, Americans welcome immigration. We are pro-immigration. The nation was built on immigration. We recognize that America is strongest when the best and brightest from all over the world come here to pursue the American dream … legally.

This is about illegal aliens.

The key word here is “illegal.”

It’s simple stuff, really.

BLITZER: But you know there are some Republican strategists – Karl Rove, among others – who are worried. This is going to alienate Hispanic voters. The Republican Party needs these people.

STEELE: I think Karl Rove is exactly right about that. And we need, as a party, to be mindful that our prior actions in this area – and certainly our rhetoric in this area – has not been the most welcoming and the most supportive of those who want to assimilate to the way of life of America …

First of all, why are Hispanics going to be automatically alienated? Are all Hispanics inherently in favor of “illegal immigration?” Are they so shallow of a group, with no sense of right and wrong – so incapable of thinking independently – that they will reflexively vote Democrat because a Republican governor is finally deciding to uphold and enforce already existing laws in Arizona? If Mexico were populated with fair-skinned Swedes, would they react differently?

Second, what “rhetoric” by Republicans is Michael Steel talking about? What “prior actions” is he referring to? At last look, Democrats – including the President himself – are the ones constantly infusing race, gender, class and ethnicity into every situation, not Republicans.

Let me be clear. The passage of the law in Arizona has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with anything other than the legality of someone’s presence in the country, period.

To be “welcoming” does not mean one turns a blind eye to the law. To be “supportive” does not mean we appease those who should not be here at the expense of those who are.

The question is … why are Hispanics so overwhelmingly “in the bag” for Democrats and gutless Republicans on this particular issue? Isn’t that the real question here? Isn’t that more important than asking why there are so many whites at the Tea Parties?

Think about it.

If the Tea Party movement really was race-based, as libs contend, how can there are so many whites on the Left making no sense? If the country south of America was filled with blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegians, and they were crossing into the country illegally, would white America look away? Are white drug overlords more tolerable than Hispanic ones? Would the murder of an Arizona rancher by a white man been more acceptable had the illegal alien been Caucasian?

Fair questions, no?

wordpress statistics

Posted in illegal immigration, Racism, Republican Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 30, 2010

Am I missing something here?

Perhaps I’m operating under a complete misconception, but I must ask: Since when does the Department of the Interior have their own SWAT team, and why are they being sent to the Gulf of Mexico to inspect oil rigs?

I didn’t realize that SWAT teams were trained to conduct such investigations. (Actually, I didn’t realize that SWAT teams were trained to conduct any investigations).

I wonder if the Department of Agriculture has its own paratrooper unit.

The word SWAT, of course, stands for Special Weapons and Tactics.

As Wikipedia accurately explains:

They are trained to perform high-risk operations that fall outside of the abilities of regular officers. Their duties include performing hostage rescues and counter-terrorism operations, serving high risk arrest and search warrants, subduing barricaded suspects, and engaging heavily-armed criminals. A SWAT team is often equipped with specialized firearms including assault rifles, submachine guns, shotguns, carbines, riot control agents, stun grenades, and high-powered rifles for snipers. They have specialized equipment including heavy body armor, entry tools, armored vehicles, advanced night vision optics, and motion detectors for covertly determining the positions of hostages or hostage takers inside of an enclosed structure. 

The move is a response by Obamacrats to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion of April 21st. Nearly 5,000 barrels of oil are pouring into the Gulf of Mexico each day.

Whether SWAT teams will be able to negotiate a peaceful resolution with the escaping oil is unknown at this time.

Perhaps next time someone in Washington can send highly trained personnel with weapons to the border ofh Mexico instead of the Gulf of Mexico.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 29, 2010

If you are politician facing an upcoming election, and you’re trying to figure out how best to boost your poll numbers, one option might be (as outrageous as it might sound) to pay attention to what the people who make up your constituency are saying.

Shocking, I know … but a concept worth visiting on occasion.

The citizens of the great state of Arizona have been demanding for a long time that something be done about the influx of illegal aliens and drugs across the state’s southern border with Mexico. They’ve had to withstand more than their fair share of lip service from sham-hawking public officials and pecksniffering crap-merchants who pledge to do something about it, but never do.

In the end – as always – the people wind up getting the shaft and are left listening to endless debates about “comprehensive” this and “path to citizenship” that. They’ve seen crimes committed in their communities at the hands of these illegals – including murder – with little or no response (outside of tedious platitudes) from government.

Governor Jan Brewer decided to finally do something about it.

And just like that, her approval rating has shot up.

Imagine that.

From Rasmussen:

Last week, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed an immigration law that launched a national debate. It has also at least temporarily helped her own chances of remaining Arizona’s governor.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state shows that 56% now approve of the way Brewer is performing her role as governor. Two weeks ago, just 40% offered their approval.

The bounce in the polls is also evident in new numbers on the November election. If Brewer is the Republican nominee, she would get 48% of the vote while her likely Democratic opponent, State Attorney General Terry Goddard, would attract 40%. Two weeks ago, it was Brewer 44% and Goddard 40%. Goddard is an outspoken opponent of the new law.

As with all poll bounces, it remains to be seen whether this is a temporary spike in support for the governor or if it signifies a lasting change in the race.

With 70% of Arizonians supporting the new illegal immigration bill – including a little more than half of Democrats in that state – Brewer’s bolstered numbers won’t be diminishing any time soon.

The people are, indeed, pushing back.

The attempt by Democrats to deflect attention from themselves and their Marxist-like goals of bringing every facet of American life under the awning of the federal government is not going to have the desired effect. Trying to shift focus from the unsustainable expansions of government they are implementing, and their continued efforts to replace our liberty with their warm, nestling bosom is going to backfire.

Hypothetically, it would be a setback for conservatism (and this country) if the national focus was, indeed, diverted from the never-ending cavalcade of Democrat disasters – and the ever-growing momentum to defeat them in November – to the repulsive straw men created by them and their throngs of desperate race-baiting demons fuelling the immigration debate.

But I don’t see that happening.

Democrats, liberals, leftists and all of the other children who believe it is a political winner to show more concern for people who are here illegally than the citizens of their own country had better think again. Those who go rummaging through the fecal matter of their minds to compare the passage of the Arizona law to acts of terrorism – like Jesse Jackson did – or the obligatory parallels to Nazi Germany – already proferred by countless pundits, bloggers and moonbats – had best rethink their strategies.

They sound like ill-educated, emotionally-driven, uninformed asses.

Cheapening words will not win the day. Not this time.

I welcome the race-baiters, ethnicity-obsessed-victicrats, and bigots of all stripes across the land to stage whatever rallies and protests they want in however many cities they desire. It won’t change a damn thing and will accomplish nothing – unlike the Tea Party movement, which has Democrats shaking in their thongs.

It’s a foregone conclusion that they will get far more coverage in the mainstream media than the Tea Parties, so what’s the difference?

Let them have at it.

The questions to be asked are: How many swastikas will we see at these rallies? How many of these people will be depicted as “angry?” Will dissent suddenly be cool again?

Incidentally, since when is asking people who are reasonably suspected of being here illegally for their documentation akin to behaving like Nazis? Aren’t legal immigrants required to have paperwork, subject to inspection?

Is having my backpack randomly searched by New York City cops before going on the subway also reminiscent of Nazi Germany?

Is spending four hours taking off my shoes and belt at the airport screening station just like being herded onto the train bound for Treblinka?

Is being frisked at the gates of Citi Field before seeing a Mets game the American equivalent to being rounded up by Hitler’s henchmen?

I love when libs use the word “Nazi.”

How is it that race-based quotas for schools, the takeover of the American health care delivery system (as well as banks and car companies), the push to regulate salt, the seizure of the federal school loan program, the public ostracizing of dissenters, the request that people opposed to Obama be reported to the government, the utter and complete disregard of the will of the people, and the confiscation of even more private property through increased taxation is not seen as Nazi-like, but doing something about controlling illegal immigration – not legal immigration, mind you, but illegal immigration – somehow invokes images of Hitler’s Father Land?

The Arizona law is simply about actually – finally – enforcing laws that already exist.

How dare they.

wordpress statistics


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 28, 2010

From the “Did You Know Water Is Wet” file …

Some things need a bit of a setup, while others fall into that delicious “speaks-for-itself” category. And although this is one of those instances where the latter is more than sufficient, anyone who reads this blog with any degree of regularity knows that it is my wont to go with the former.

It’s more fun that way.

For those consumers of mainstream media news who find the question “What color was George Washington’s white horse” somewhat of a brain-bender, and have a hard time pinning down the name of the person buried in Grant’s tomb, there is MSNBC. It is where the vapid go to mingle; where the merely-obvious makes way for the exceedingly-obvious; where digging deep means more than just shoving a finger in your nostril when no one is around. It is the home of hardcore analysis, if by hardcore you mean inane.

During Monday’s lunch hour on MSNBC, with Contessa Brewer at the anchor desk leading the discussion on Arizona’s new illegal immigrant enforcement law, the on-screen headline read: “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant.”

Honestly, it did.

The network of Huntley, Brinkley and Chancellor literally flashed what many are saying could be a potential Pulitzer Prize winner: “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant.”

MSNBC is clearly the thinking person’s news source.

Nothing gets past the MSNBC News Room.

Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters writes:

Brewer discussed the issue with Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and wondered: “Is this an effective way to deal with the problem?” In response, Sanchez declared: “to stop people and say, ‘I think you look like an illegal immigrant’ and then drag them off to jail is not the way to deal with this issue.”

Brewer followed up by quoting current Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano: “she would veto these kinds of bills because she said – she thought it was important for police to be doing actual police work, that they are not immigration enforcement officers.” As Brewer made that argument, the headline “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant” flashed on screen.

Note how MSNBC cleverly managed to round up a congresswoman with an Hispanic last name for her opinion on the matter. That’s because only the opinions of liberal Hispanics and race-baiting wastes of space like Al Sharpton matter on the issue of border control.

Besides, as everyone is now aware, the new law specifically states that all Hispanic or vaguely-Hispanic looking people within the borders of the State of Arizona must be targeted and harassed by state law enforcement officials. It also states that people of Hispanic ancestry are good-for-nothing stinkers and must be made examples of for the amusement of Arizona Caucasians. (Blacks and Orientals are not allowed to be amused).

The crack staff here at Roman Around is diligently combing through the MSNBC archive tapes to confirm that their news team has broken the following stories:

“Gravity Makes Stuff Fall.”

“Sunday Makes Up The Second Half Of The Weekend.”

“Horny Heterosexual Men Like Boobs.”

All seven of MSNBC’s viewers are defending the network, saying the MSNBC logo is more colorful and aesthetically pleasing than CNN’s or Fox’s.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2010

Thanks to the fetching Mrs. Roman for passing this along.

Generally speaking, if I get a chuckle out of something, I’m certain someone else will.

Beauty may, indeed, be in the eye of the beholder, but funny is funny.

And let me get this out of the way now because I know I will be asked the question later: “Of course you’re as pretty as all those girls, honey.”


Posted in humor | Tagged: | 5 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2010

It’s been played so much in recent times, handled by so many Obamacrats, that the race card must be nothing more than a mass of frayed wood pulp and lint by now.

From the party of tolerance, acceptance, character-over-color, unity, and plummeting poll numbers comes the latest appeal to potential voters, from none other than the Head Cheese himself.

Try to imagine, if you can, how fast the Reverend Al Sharpton would jettison himself from behind his cheeseburger to find the closest open microphone had a white Republican President, looking to garner support for an upcoming election, said: “It will be up to you to make sure the young people, Caucasians, folks of European descent, and men who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again. It will be up to each of you to keep our nation moving forward, to keep working to fix Washington, to keep growing our economy, and to keep building a fairer, stronger and more just America.”

Arteries would be bursting in the necks of liberals everywhere.

The collective sound of millions of liberal conniptions would wake the dead and trigger seismograph activity across the globe.

It would be uglier than a surfboardless Keanu Reeves trying to act.

Thank God we don’t have to worry about such things. Thank God there is a Messiah “in da house.”

It is, once again, a Kumbaya liberal bringing all of America together (except those reluctant Limbaugh wing nuts) by breaking out that old tattered race card in the name of justice, fairness and whole lot of blah, blah, blah.

Everybody’s president has spoken.

And no, the Reverend Al Sharpton won’t be needed this time around.

And why not?

Because the President did not single out Caucasians. Instead, Obama appealed to African-Americans.

The President never mentioned “folks of European descent.” Rather, he kept his focus on Latinos.

And Obama did not reach out to men, God forbid. Instead, he was all about the female vote (i.e., the pro-abortion chicks).

Yes, the President of the United States actually said those words in a clip put out by the Democratic National Committee yesterday.

That’s because “fair” means singling out specific races and ethnicities. That’s because “just” means taxing the so-called “rich” – the job creators in this country – even more so that those who don’t earn it themselves can get it anyway. That’s because “stronger” means punishing those who succeed instead of trying to elevate those who haven’t (without handouts).

As Dems continue to do their best to label the Tea Party movement as “racist” and “angry” and “exclusionary,” it is the President himself who just cannot seem to free himself from his own skin-color and ethnicity fixation.

I humbly ask: Who exactly is the divider?

Has there ever been a man to occupy the Office of President of the United States (as well as the Office of President-Elect) who was less Presidential than he?

Hillary Clinton doesn’t count.

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Obama Bonehead, politics, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2010

The elevator at Democrat National Committee headquarters.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 26, 2010

There’s an important point to be made regarding the “drawing of the Prophet Mohammed” discussions taking place all over cyberspace in recent days.

Ever since the artistically-courageous Comedy Central television network decided it was best to assume the role of coward by censoring an episode of South Park depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammed in cartoon form – something that is strictly forbidden, according to many Muslims – the topic has been as hot as Al Gore’s twisted perception of the earth’s climate.

Comedy Central’s grab-the-ankles move was motivated only by cowardice. Nothing else. It had nothing to do with sensitivity.

They got scared.

The fact is, even if one hundred thousand devout Christians protested in the streets against a  South Park episode portraying Jesus in a less than favorable light, no one at the drawing boards would worry about violent retribution from a vengeful gang of Christ followers.

Even a Seattle artist, Molly Norris, who initially won my respect by creating a clever campaign called “Everybody Draw Muhamned Day,” has done an about-face, tucking her once audacious tail back between her legs and scurrying back to her den of political correctness and sick submission. On her website, she wrote: “I am NOT involved in “Everybody Draw Mohammd [sic] Day!”

Such courage.

Such fortitude.

I suppose fearing an IED blast from under your chair at Starbucks is sufficiently motivating.

Indeed, submerging a crucifix in a container of urine can pass for thought-provoking, bold social commentary – while, most importantly, striking no fear whatsoever in the heart of any artist who wishes to desecrate Christ in such a way – but daring to portray Mohammed in picture form (something that was done in the Middle Ages, incidentally) is a cataclysmic no-no.


So be it.

Miss Tammy at the great Weasel Zippers blog wrote: “May she enjoy her dhimmitude.”


The obvious point to be made here is that there is no danger of a band of knife-wielding rabbis storming the offices of a publication that depicts Moses or Isaiah in a funny hat wearing a bathrobe. There will be no ax-brandishing gang of Jesus-loving extremists busting down the door of a television production facility that creates a cartoon of a mellow, perhaps-high, Jesus Christ working in a record store in Rhode Island – like on The Family Guy, for instance.

The larger, more relevant point to make here is that only in Islam do practitioners expect non-believers to adhere to their beliefs at the risk of a violent backlash (see Theo Van Gogh).

First of all, why is it necessary for non-Muslims to have to keep from depicting Muhammed in art form if they don’t believe he is a prophet? Isn’t that akin to Jews demanding that non-Jews avoid bacon because they keep kosher? Or threatening violence if gentiles mix milk and meat? Isn’t that as ridiculous a proposition as insisting that non-Christians wear a cross around their necks or else risk getting blown up?

Second, why do non-Muslims call Muhammed the “Prophet” when, to them, he isn’t one? I don’t hear a lot of Muslims calling Jesus “The Savior, Jesus.”

The sad irony is that the very thing “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” was supposed to address – namely, the outrageousness of death threats aimed at people who draw Mohammed – is what caused Norris to turn-tail.

Norris was certainly not equipped to be the “leader” of such a movement. She simply had a good idea that caught on, and then got scared when it got “too real” for her. This really isn’t intended as an indictment on her. Rather, this is slice to the throat of those who continue to tow the ever-fracturing line of moral relativism.

I am confident that the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” will now take on a life of its own.

Mark it down on your calender.

It’s May 20th.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Islam | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 26, 2010

Jan Brewer, Arizona Governor

I promise you, as God is my witness, that if I had the ability to do so, I would extract liberals from deep within the cerebral prisons they currently dwell and facilitate a kind of out of body experience for them. I truly believe that if afforded the opportunity to see and hear themselves as the rest of us do, they could – I say, could – actually come to realize how absurd they sound on relevant matters.

Arizona is the busiest portal into this country for narcotics and illegals. Residents there have had it up to their nipples watching their state become overrun with unwanted intruders and drug-peddling vermin.

Yet, none of this seems to concern liberals very much – at least not enough to actually do something other than fashion some clever commentary chuck full of buzz words and phrases like “fairness” and “civil rights” and “comprehensive.”

Well, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer actually did something about it.

When she signed what has become this country’s latest raging controversy into law on Friday – namely an actual immigration enforcement bill – you’d have thought she issued an edict calling for the murder of the state’s first born … or appointed Meghan McCain as Lieutenant Governor.

Brewer essentially removed the shackles from her state’s law enforcement officials so that immigration laws that are already on the books can actually be enforced.

It’s a novel concept.

It’s an inevitable – and commendable – reaction to a situation that has been festering for a long time.

Like any law in any state, there will be time for adjustments and modifications. Parameters will have to be solidified, and any abuses that may arise – as there would be with any piece of legislation – will be tended to. There is no perfect law.

But make no mistake, this law needed to be passed – to protect all American citizens, regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity or color. (Yes, libs, that includes Americans of Hispanic ancestry … like me).

This is about stopping illegals. Nothing more.

True to form, the first thing out of President Obama’s waffle hole was that the law is “misguided.” Cries from across the land that the new law would open the door to civil rights abuses could be heard from coast to coast, echoed by whiny leftists, out-of-work infomercial watching liberals, government-teat feeders and John Lennon “Imagine-there’s-no-countries” leftists.

The words “racial profiling” once again have hit the front burners of America’s consciousness.

Said our heralded Commander-In-Chief:

Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

So, am I to understand, in attempting to decipher The One’s words, that the “basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans” translates into allowing illegal aliens – non-Americans – to break our laws? That it “undermines fairness” to enforce those laws meant to protect law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? How about Arizona rancher, Robert Krentz, recently shot to death on his own property by an illegal? What about his basic notion of fairness?

What on earth is Barack Obama talking about?

This is what I mean by sounding “absurd.” This is the brilliantly teleprompted, Harvard Constitutional scholar in action? This is the best he’s got?

If I may, allow me to briefly help Barack Obama understand what Americans really cherish.

Americans cherish a leader who will abide by the Constitutional charges of the office: to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Americans cherish a government actually doing what it is supposed to do. Americans cherish liberty.


In that sense, Obama is right. Protecting America is the federal government’s job. The Constitution says so. But trusting Barack Obama with national security is like leaving the key to the meat locker to Michael Moore.

Governor Brewer of Arizona decided that if the feds weren’t going to do something about rampant illegal immigration, she had to.

It’s called leadership.

Seventy percent of Arizona’s citizens – including fifty-one percent of Arizona Democrats – support this law.

That’s right, support this law.

Yet, Bammy the Heavy Handed-One – the man who never met any kind of liberty he didn’t dislike – has “instructed” the administration to “examine the civil rights and other implications of the legislation.”

So, then what?

Does that mean those elected officials in Arizona who are trying to protect their citizens – precisely because the federal government won’t – could feel the hot breath of Eric Holder’s Justice Department on their necks while illegals gun down innocent Americans? Will liberty-loving patriots in Arizona be subject to the totalitarian boot of Washington Obamacrats because enforcing existing immigration laws may, indeed, “offend” certain segments of the population?

See what fifteen months can do?

But the best part of all this is the fact that the Overlord of All Race Baiters himself – the slick-haired, riot-inciting, arbiter of all that is decent and fair – Al Sharpton is set to travel to Arizona to protest.

Who didn’t see that coming?

From the Washington Post:

The Rev. Al Sharpton says he’s ready to travel to Arizona and march in the streets to protest the state’s new immigration law.

Sharpton joined Lillian Rodriguez Lopez from the Hispanic Federation in New York City on Sunday to speak out against the law. They say activists are prepared to commit civil disobedience to fight it.

Feel free to take a “yippee!” out of petty cash.

As one caller to the Laura Ingraham show pointed out this morning, the biggest difference between illegal aliens and Al Sharpton is that illegals do all they can to remain unseen. Al Sharpton, on the other hand, does all he can to make sure the world is looking right at him.

Let’s be clear here: This is not about the police pulling over people who look Latino, demanding to see proof of citizenship. That is not what this is about, and the Governor of Arizona has explicitly said so. This is about law enforcement officials being able to enforce immigration laws when there is reasonable suspicion that people are here illegally. Despite what up-in-arms activists and loud-mouth reactionaries say, simply pulling someone over for “looking Latino” won’t cut it. Something like that would get thrown out of court in about four nanoseconds.   

But, for argument’s sake, let’s say that there was some degree of racial profiling being employed in enforcing the new law (even though “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race). Why is singling out and offering special preferences to certain races and ethnicities perfectly acceptable when it comes to things such as college admissions, but not for protecting citizens of all colors and creeds?

If using a person’s race is not an acceptable criterion on one hand, why does the other hand get a pass?

Incidentally, look for this legislation to be duplicated in other states.

Thank God.

wordpress statistics

Posted in illegal immigration, national security, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 25, 2010

In February, 2009 – not even a month into the Messianic Age – the President made a visit to Southwest Florida. He was at his “savior-of-all-mankind” apex, when his mere presence provoked the kind of adulation reserved for Beatles and Popes. This was the era when people would show up at Obama rallies thinking that by simply looking at him, they’d suddenly have the answers. This was the era when folks believed Obama would find a way to pay their rents for them and keep the lights on.

Here’s a little piece I penned at the time, originally posted on 11 February, 2009:

Nearly one-third of the Fort Myers, Florida police department was assigned to “body removal patrol” – that is, clearing away those who had fainted. Fully one-half of all EMT personnel in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties were called in to resuscitate those for whom the whole event was too much. From Southwest Regional Airport, all the way to the Harborside Events Center where HE spoke last evening, all along the route – and for three miles in each direction off his motorcade path – businesses were ordered closed, residents were ordered to leave, pets rounded up and kept out of sight, and nearly thirty-two million people lined the streets to get a glimpse of HIM.

On Daniels Road, thousands were seen licking the black top where HIS limo had driven passed. Others were stretched across the median crying loudly, flailing their arms, while others wept silently. All along HIS travel route, worshippers struggled to break security lines so that they might inhale some of the exhaust fumes coming from HIS car. One even wrapped herself in a giant burrito and covered herself in sour cream and picante sauce and dangled herself from a “Yield” sign on US 41 when she heard that HE liked tex mex. The blind and physically handicapped were brought to the parking lot of the Harborside Events Center to touch full-color Xerox copies of HIS image. The deaf were allowed to watch a young man wearing a rubber Obama mask communicate articulately in sign language the way HE might do if he couldn’t hear.

Before HIS arrival, devotees were ushered in by the droves, from all walks of life, from the very sick to the young and healthy, wearing “Obama Is King” t-shirts, carrying “Heal Me Obama” signs, wearing “Bend me, Shape me, Obama Baby” buttons. Some were seen pulling in their Bam-O-Matic Messiah Brand dialysis machines and diabetes test kits. As many as two-hundred million Americans crammed into the Publix parking lot across the street and into the field behind the Circle K adjacent to the venue to be able to say they exhaled the very carbon dioxide that fed the palm tree by the back entrance of the building where HE was going to conduct a townhall meeting.

The excitement was immeasurable. In the aisles, obstetricians were inducing labor on pregnant women so that HIS voice would be the first their babies heard upon entering the world. The dead were exhumed and wheeled in so that HE might inject life into them. Hundreds of children were singing songs of praise to HIM in four thousand different languages. The swimming pool in the center of the arena was cleaned one last time so that HE would have unsullied water to walk on during HIS presentation. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was seen picking out Drake’s Coffee Cake crumbs from the grill of the microphone HE would use (Michael Moore spoke there the night before), while Keith Olbermman had wads of Charmin Ultra Soft bathroom tissue wound up in hand and at the ready should HE need to visit the facilities.

Just moments before HE made his appearance, the roof of the venue opened up to sounds of clapping thunder so deafening that the dead began to stir. Forty-four streaks of lightning then came from the heavens, illuminating the night sky with a brilliance the likes of which had not been seen by human eyes until then. The audience at once fell to its knees as a beam of paisley hot light rose from the depths of the swimming pool, morphing into a violent red vortex of flame, eventually reaching through the open roof, into the night sky, beyond the clouds.

More sounds of calamitous thunder echoed across Lee County and into the Gulf of Mexico as HE appeared.

At first no one dared to lay eyes upon HIM until HE said that they all were permitted to look.

He told them to raise their eyes, and they did.

The applause lasted eleven hours, eighteen minutes.

As President Barack Obama eventually began to speak, nearly thirteen thousand women lost consciousness instantaneously. Another ten thousand – including men – became woozy from constantly mouthing the words “I love you, Barack” over and over again. Tears flowed down every cheek in the hall.

Paraplegics stood up.

The halitosis-inflicted had minty fresh breath.

They came to see HIM, to sniff HIM, to be hugged by HIM, to have their gaping wounds touched by HIM, to have their electricity bills paid by HIM, to have their homes financed by HIM, to have their food supplied by HIM, to have their infections cleansed by HIM, to have their souls healed by HIM, and to ask HIM questions.

And they did.

Q: “Mr. Obama, why?”

A: “Uh .. because.”

Q: “Mr. One, how can I be a better person?”

A: “Uh .. you definitely can.”

Q: “Mr. President, things are tough for me. Can you pay my mortgage?”

A: “Let me hug you.”

Q: “Oh Great Obama, does this shirt make me look fat?”

A: “There are no fat cats here.”

Q: “Do you love us? Will you save us?”

A: “I won.”

Q: “Can you give me stuff?”

A: “Yes we can.”

HE fielded six thousand, two-hundred seventeen questions at the Harborside Events Center in Fort Myers, Florida last evening – and shared his tongue and onion sandwich with everyone who came to see him.

When it was all said and done – after all the waffles had been eaten, and long after the last healed cripple jogged home to wait by the mailbox for his stimulus check – The One spoke to reporters about what was truly a magnificent evening, saying, “Are you the Huffington Post guy? Or is it that gay looking dude?”

One thing is for certain … He left an everlasting impression upon those who came by car service and Subaru to see him.

Next up at the Harborside Events Center, the Frank Cox Gem and Jewelry Show, February 13-15, 2009.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 25, 2010

Many folks in my age group – born from, say, the mid-60s through the early 70s – remember the original Electric Company program. Folks like Rita Moreno, Morgan Freeman and Bill Cosby were among those celebrities involved in the original series (although Freeman was unknown at the time). Indeed, I was an avid viewer while still in my single digits.

There were a host of talented artists and song writers who contributed sketches and songs to the program.

Like many of the television theme songs we all grew up with – not to mention endless songs on AM radio – it is difficult to shake a lot of the musical sequences from the show.

They linger.

Many of you will remember this one – a particular favorite of my wife and me (and yes, my teenage daughters, too, whom we made watch some of these bits) – written by Tom Lehrer.

The L-Y song.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 25, 2010


I get what this is supposed to mean, but it still sounds like it was written by Senator John Kerry.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 23, 2010

Because salt is such a killer, it ought to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the Institute of Medicine.

After all, life is so delicate and precious.

Yet, destroying an unborn human life is somehow a woman’s absolute right; and her ability to do so, on demand, should be protected.

Salt can lead to strokes, high blood pressure and heart disease and should therefore be subjected to FDA restrictions (i.e., what the federal government says). Abortions, by contrast, are an act of homicide against the innocent … and government has no right to interfere with that choice.

Interesting logic.

So, if I own a food processing plant, or a restaurant, and I want to make my chicken francese to be on the salty side because I, and my customers, enjoy it that way, I won’t be able to prepare it without first checking to see if it passes the government smell test (or should I say “taste” test?). That’s because too much salt kills millions and millions of innocent people each and every day, and unless the government steps in, more will die. 

In fact, everyone will die.

As we’ve come to find out during the first fifteen months of the Messianic Age, government always knows best.

And yet, if I have a sixteen year old daughter who gets pregnant, she should have the right, without my permission, to have that baby scraped out of her uterus on demand. That, I’m told, is an issue of “reproductive rights” and “privacy” and “health care.”

Yeah, okay.

(I know it’s difficult to make heads or tails of these things without a Liberal/English dictionary).

And so, the war against salt moves forward.

From Fox News:

U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits.

The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources.

U.S. researchers said in a recent study that working with the food industry to cut salt intake by nearly 10 percent could prevent hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and strokes over several decades and save the U.S. government $32 billion in healthcare costs.

… and banning automobiles will prevent 45,000 deaths on America’s roadways. And regulating Twinkies, Ring Dings and other packaged snack cakes will contribute to slimming down America’s waistlines. And restricting loud music through headphones will cut back on the number of people who wind up hearing impaired. And banning sex for people with arrhythmias will help cut back the number of people who come and go at the same time. And banning swimming pools will dramatically cut down on the number of accidental drownings. And placing an embargo on stepladders will keep the number of cranium-crunching spills to a minimum. And restricting sleep will significantly reduce the number of sleep-apnea deaths. And doing away with electricity will prevent an incalculable number of bathtub electrocutions.

The beat goes on …

And while this may not be the time to go debunking long-held beliefs, there are credible studies that suggest salt is not the killer it is cracked up to be.

In 2008, the Journal of General Internal Medicine published a study called “Sodium Intake and Mortality Follow-Up in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.”

As summarized at Scientific Blogging:

High-salt diets may not increase the risk of death, contrary to long-held medical beliefs, according to investigators from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.

They reached their conclusion after examining dietary intake among a nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. The Einstein researchers actually observed a significantly increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with lower sodium diets.

“Our findings suggest that for the general adult population, higher sodium is very unlikely to be independently associated with higher risk of death from CVD or all other causes of death,” says Dr. Hillel W. Cohen, associate professor of epidemiology and population health at Einstein.

The ultimate goal of nanny-staters, big-government meddlers and thwarters of liberty, presumably, is to do away with death altogether.

For many human beings, “life” isn’t simply the act of being physically alive. The ability for one to choose how to live their own life – to make decisions for themselves, to enjoy their own little pleasures, such as eating what they want – is “life.” Indeed, there are big-government nanny-staters who prize their own versions of “life” so much – free of risk, free of salt, free of fat, free of God, free of smoke, whatever – that they feel their choices should be everyone’s choices. Sure, they insist that the freedom to choose is a good thing … as long as the all-knowing, all-feeling, all-sensing federal government sets the parameters.

That isn’t life.

My father-in-law, as an example, dropped dead at the age of 61 of a heart attack. He was hard-working farmer who called himself an unabashed steak and potatoes man. He enjoyed “real” food. He was not a pâté and crackers kind of guy. He didn’t do salads and fruit cups. He liked meat. And if given the option of living another twenty years on a diet of low-sodium baked salmon, spinach salads and sugar-free lemon jello, he’d have taken the steak and the 61 years without blinking an eye. To him, life wasn’t life if he couldn’t enjoy the little things that gave him pleasure – like food. He made his choices. For him, eighty unhappy years would not have been more desirable than sixty happy ones.

We are all free to make such choices … or we should be.

Besides, knowing that smokers generally don’t live as long as non-smokers, and taking into account that obese people generally live shorter lives than thinner people, and understanding that the overwhelming vast majority of human beings who do live long lives – including the most healthy among us – will eventually require health care and medications toward the end of their days (and will collect more social security than those who die younger), what exactly is the real benefit of having the heavy hand of government telling people how much salt they can use in their pasta sauces?

Why is all this necessary? And what is next? Does anyone honestly believe that government will stop with salt?

Remember, the loss of liberty is incremental .. and getting it back once it’s gone is a bitch.

Informing the public is one thing – and I’m all for that.

Controlling it is another.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Nanny State | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 23, 2010


There are no parking meters on golf courses.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2010

As I did last year, I’d like to take this opportunity to share with you how I intend to spend Earth day, 2010.

As a rule, I prefer to keep the details of my personal life as private as possible, but in this age of environmental awareness and climate dysfunctionality, I thought it might be illuminating to share some of the more choice tidbits that are taking up slots on my Earth Day docket, the forty-first annual Earth Day.

I’ll forego the morning hygiene rituals and move right into the meat of my morning.

The first thing I will do upon rising is run out to the driveway and warm up my diesel-engine car for thirty minutes (even though it doesn’t need it). I will then enlist my twin daughters to help me turn on every television and radio in the house after giving each toilet a good flush. I will, of course, make sure we throw sizeable wads of triple-ply bathroom tissue into each bowl before doing so.

And don’t think I won’t be scolding them if they forget to leave the refrigerator door open.

I will, of course, then have them separate the laundry into thirty-six different loads and place them on the floor around the washing machine so that we might needlessly run the washer and dryer for three weeks.

After we finish breakfast – which we will eat on styrofoam plates – I will max out my carbon credit card by throwing the empty plastic milk container into the regular garbage pail instead of the recyclables can.

(I’m a wild man, I know).

I will then drive my daughters to school while puffing on a cigar with the window open, making sure the exhaled smoke fills as much of the lower atmosphere as possible. By the time I return home – emitting fifty miles worth of diesel engine pollutants into the air along the way – I will stop off to buy paper towels and more bathroom tissue. (While I do keep Handi Wipes in the kitchen under the sink, I find reusable rags somewhat disgusting. It’s easier and far more satisfying to fill my garbage cans – and ultimately the landfills – with endless clumps of paper towels.

In fact, I know I will get so caught up in the spirit of the day that I will purposely create spills in the kitchen just to go through an entire roll of super-absorbancy paper towels before 11AM. It will be as exhilarating as it will be inspiring … and messy.

As far as bathroom tissue is concerned, let’s just say there won’t be many septic tanks sending me happy notes.

I will then walk around the house arbitrarily spraying aerosol cans into the air.

Borrowing my friend’s fossil-fuel munching Hummer, I plan on driving around in circles until I find a Chinese Restaurant that specializes in MSG-laden foods and uses only energy-inefficient gas guzzlers to make their neighborhood deliveries.

Following lunch, I will go back to the supermarket and buy up all of their reusable “enviro-friendly” green shopping bags so that everyone who visits the store after me can get their groceries stuffed into those landfill choking “plastic” bags.

Before returning home, I will pull off to the side of the road and let the Hummer idle for three-and-a-half hours while I cut up the reusable grocery bags into kitty litter box liners.

Then, as I pull into my driveway, I will remember that I need to go out and run twelve more errands. I will drive the Hummer into Manhattan and purchase a little egg timer (as suggested by some of the Earth Day literature I had been looking at yesterday) so that I might be able to time my showers in the future to save water … and the planet.

Baths kill.

When I finish with my dozen errands, I will drop off the Hummer at my friend’s place and sit in my idling diesel car for fifty-eight minutes as I reflect on my busy afternoon, puffing on yet another cigar, contemplating the earth’s fragility and the Mets’ lousy offense.

Later, I hope  to find some time to plant a tree in honor of Earth Day, as President Barack Obama and former-President Bill Clinton did last year, but I’ll almost certainly wind up eating two Yodels and cleaning up after the dog instead.

After a quick bout of global warming-inducing flatulence, I will watch an episode of “The Critic,” take a Tylenol, and go to sleep.

It will be a day I’ll never remember.

Happy Earth Day everyone!

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, environmentalism, Global Warming, humor, Liberalism, Science, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2010

Remember when the President redefined the word “earmark” so that he could look back at the American people and say (in that smooth-as-Ex-Lax community-organizing way of his): “There are no earmarks in this bill”?

Remember when the President said he would be giving tax cuts to 95% of the American people (without actually cutting a single tax rate, mind you) when all he was actually doing was siphoning money from the wealthiest Americans and redistributing it?

Remember when this was going to be the most transparent administration in history?

Remember blah, blah, blah, yadda-yadda, ishkabibble, do-re-me?

In Barack Obama’s world, there are no parameters, no guidelines, and no standards that he does not define. He creates the rules as he goes along. He sets the terms of the game.

It is the liberal way.

Nothing is bigger than he. America’s future is endowed by its Obama.

If, for instance, he needs to say that health care costs will be magically cheaper for everyone by adding thirty million people to the insurance rolls without increasing the pool of doctors, BOOM! It is suddenly so.

If it suits him to say that the science behind global warming is settled, SHAZAM! It is settled.

He says it, so it is truth.

Take the Bush tax cuts, for instance.

Barack Obama, in a CNBC interview, said that America cannot afford to keep the Bush tax cuts in tact. He says that it is “perfectly fair” to return to the tax rates of the Clinton era. (See the video here, via the great Freedom’s Lighthouse blog)

No matter how you slice it, by definition, that is a tax hike.

Of course, Barack Obama will not look at it that way. He is simply allowing the rates to return to what they once were.

The fact is, tax rates will increase with Barack Obama at the helm. It doesn’t make a difference if those tax hikes are the result of new legislation enactment or allowing previous legislation to lapse. Tax rates will go up with Barack Obama steering the ship. He can shape it, explain it, rationalize it, justify it and manipulate it any way he pleases, but the bottom line is: Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse is, definitionally, a tax increase.

Of course, according to Obama, this action would only affect the “rich” – defined by the Annointed One as anyone making over $250,000 a year. They would see their Bush-era tax cuts lapse, because the President has decided that they can afford it.

The “rich” make enough money.

How can Barack Obama say that it is “perfectly fair” to return to Clinton-era tax rates when not everyone will be doing so? What is “fair” about it? Why is it that those who are the most successful – the ones who, in many cases actually put the rest of us to work – are being singled out? How is this good for America?

It’s Obama-style fairness: the push for equality, liberalism’s most important value. In Obamistan, it’s always best to bring those who are at the top down than to encourage people and create incentives for those at the bottom to go up.

In his CNBC interview, the President also said that 98% of “workin’ families” got “tax cuts.”


What tax cuts are these?

Does he mean the money sucked from the “rich” and redistributed to “workin’ families” to the tune of eight dollars a month?

Is he kidding?

Those are not tax cuts … but because he says they are, tax cuts they shall be.

The Congressional Budget Office officially scores those “cuts” (i.e., refundable credits) under “direct spending.”

When the President said, “I don’t think we can afford it,” it would have been nice if the “journalist” interviewing him would have followed up with, “You mean, like the bailouts and health care reform?”

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, politics, Taxes | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2010

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 21, 2010

Friedn to conservatism, columnsit Kathleen Parker

I suppose the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker is considered one of those mainstream-media-friendly “sensible” conservatives – the kind that doesn’t reflexively fall back on all of that “Constitution” and “Founding Fathers” stuff like many of the hate-peddlers that populate the right.

She isn’t scary like the throngs of sign-carrying tea-partiers who keep the shivering libs constantly having to unravel the knots in their collective panties.

She’s like David Frumm with big blue pearls – almost cuddly.

She poses no real threat.

She is one of those “reasonable” center-right voices that the mainstream media news outfits can summon when needed so they can say, “Of course we’re balanced. Of course we present both sides. We had Kathleen Parker talking with Bob Schieffer just the other day.”

Parker, indeed, may be one of those folks you’d love to split a knish with, but she doesn’t speak for conservatives or conservatism.

She is one of those tepid, non-wave-making, clever wordsmiths who believes it is a grave mistake for the Republican Party to espouse tried and true conservative principals. Such a strategy, according to her right-light way of thinking, would be alienating to too many. All of that ‘Declaration of Independence” stuff, and the whole thing with the guns and the Second Amendment, and always bringing up the Constitution and the Framers, and that God mumbo-jumbo … it’s just too much. To the Kathleen Parkers of the world, a shift toward the center is the way to draw the masses into the big tent of a mushier and more pliable GOP – as John McCain successfully proved in November, 2008.


Speaking with Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Face The Nation on Sunday, the following exchange took place:

SCHIEFFER: And you write this morning about some of the rhetoric that’s coming out from the right side, especially from the tea party, and you point out that you think it may be dangerous.

PARKER: Well, I think we have to be cautious. I’m not saying that the tea partiers are bad people or dangerous, but I think that the zeitgeist now – with all this heated rhetoric, and some of these words that are pretty loaded: “reload,” “targeting,” all that sort of thing – you know, there’s a danger there. I just think we have to be very vigilant. I do think there’s a lot of anger and it could become something else.

SCHIEFFER: I saw some of this really nasty rhetoric that shows up on the internet, where you don’t know who said it. There really is no accountability – the internet being the only place, the only vehicle that will deliver news that has no editor.

PARKER: It’s sort of like terrorism. You know, we don’t know where to aim our bombs, and we can’t go after a country because there’s no one place to focus on it, and it’s the same thing with the internet. You don’t know who to go after.

(see the video, direct from here)

Where to begin?

First of all, it might help if Parker stopped sounding like a typical, off-the-rack, inconsistent, speak-before-you-think liberal. (Unless, of course, she secretly is one).

Talking about the tea partiers, she told Bob Schieffer “there’s a danger there.” Yet, she insisted she was not calling tea partiers dangerous.


Tea-partiers who, in her mind, pose a potential threat would have to be, by definition, “dangerous.” She cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that the tea partiers are not dangerous and then, in the next sentence, say that there is a danger there. It’s like voting for something before voting against it. It nothing but mushy-in-the-middle RINO-like double-speak. If, indeed, the tea parties could evolve into “something else,” as Parker believes, then the participants must be dangerous.

Second, Americans are angry. They should be. They see the freest, most accommodating nation the world has ever known – the beacon of liberty for the entire world – being transformed into a Marxist-flavored nanny-state. They see those things that have made the United States the greatest country ever to grace God’s green earth being beat down by big-government-loving leftists who spit on the free market and have contempt for rugged individualism.

What’s not to be angry about?

But being angry doesn’t mean violence is the inevitable next step, does it? What indications are there that the kind of “danger” Parker fears lurks ahead?

Has Parker actually been to any of these rallies? Has she seen the people who attend these events? Has she noticed how well-behaved and civil these gatherings have been? Has she taken note of the lack of violence and ugliness at these tea parties?

The tea parties, in fact, have been peaceful gatherings in the true spirit of the First Amendment. The tea-partiers even clean up after themselves – something that Inaugural Day attendees didn’t bother doing when The One was anointed fifteen months ago.

Have the tea parties, in any way, shape or form resembled the anti-war demonstrations of the Bush years? Have there been arrests and violence connected to the tea-parties akin to, say, the “Bush=Hitler” protests that we saw during the “W” era? Where are the books written by tea partiers that depict the assassination of Barack Obama? What conservative think tanks or organizations have sent out memos wishing for the death of a Democrat governor, as was done with New Jersey’s Republican Governor Christie by that state’s liberal teacher’s union? What conservative groups have had members chain themselves to the fence of the White House, as did some “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” protestors recently? What Republican presidents have had comedians wish for the death of liberal commentators at official functions?

It's called legitimate dissent, Kathleen

Third, does Parker really want to say that posting nasty rhetoric on the internet is somehow similar to perpetrating a terrorist act? Is that the best a so-called conservative columnist can come up with who wishes to appease her mainstream media overlords? Is that what it takes to keep those invitations to the most important cocktail parties in Washington coming? Using the word “terrorist” and “tea partier” in the same stream of thought?

I’m curious …

Did Bob Schieffer ever question Frank Rich or Paul Krugman on “nasty rhetoric” when the internet was rife with “Die Rush Limbaugh” posts after Rush was taken to the hospital several weeks ago? Did the “I hope Dick Cheney gets cancer” blog entries, or the “Put Bush out of this nation’s misery” posts somehow elude the ever-vigilant Bob Schieffer? Were the swastikas too small on the protest signs for Schieffer and Crew to notice as the anti-war left succumbed to their Bush Derangemnt Syndrome?

To be fair, I don’t think anyone would disagree that anonimity is a powerful badge of courage in the cyber world. A large percentage of what we all see and read on the web simply would not be out there if a name and town were attached to everything that was written. And that goes for commentary on both sides of the aisle.

That being said, Parker’s language is disconcerting.

In agreeing with Bob Schieffer, she said it was difficult to know who is behind the anti-Obama rhetoric because “you don’t know who to go after.”

“Go after?”

Now that sounds dangerous.


H/T to the great Weasel Zippers blog.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Media Bias, Tea Party | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 20, 2010

It's his fault!

From the “Huh?” file …

I know I’ve said this before, as have many others, but if the radical environmental movement continues on its current path, the “parody” industry will surely go bankrupt. The unemployment lines will swell disproportionately with the ranks of out-of-work comedy writers, disenfranchised satirists and down-on-their-luck stand-up jokesters. Publications like “The Onion” could go extinct.

For example, there was a time when someone could say “global warming causes global cooling,” and it was considered absurdly funny.

Today, it is accepted as reality by the environmentally hysterical.

Long ago, when the Maharishi of myth, Al Gore, would arrive for a lecture on global warming in sub-zero temperatures, it was hilariously ironic.

Today, it is explained away as a natural consequence of man-made climate change.

Each day, it seems, new paths to the inevitable catastrophe awaiting us all come to light.

The latest cause of the planet’s rapid approach to a steady boil is none other than that old planet-killing stand-by, pollution.

But it’s not what you think.

The rub here is not that there is too much pollution, but that there is too little.

Eli Kintisch of the Los Angeles Times says cleaner air could speed up the global warming process:

You’re likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there’s a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That’s right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution — caused primarily by burning coal — climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they’ve been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

I promise you this is not a leftover post from the 1st of April.

I have not (to the best of my knowledge) had any heavy narcotics slipped into my single-serving fruit cup.

I am not an animal.

Apparently, we never knew how good we had it when we had more of a devil-may-care approach to pollution.

As a child, I gave a hoot and didn’t pollute. Little did I know I was turning up the burner on Mother Earth.

I never realized how much of a bastard I really am.

Damn you, Woodsy Owl!!!

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 20, 2010

“Disgust” isn’t even the right word anymore. I feel almost inadequate to the task of maintaining this blog because the appropriate words escape me. How many different ways can one express contempt at the way this administration does things? How many variations of a single theme can one articulate before it loses its effectiveness? How often can one say that he or she weeps for the future of this most magnificent nation before its impact becomes meaningless?

If Ronald Reagan saw America as the shining city on the hill, Barack Obama is erecting iron gates around that city.

If Ronald Reagan reminded us how splendid this nation of liberty is, Barack Obama is reinventing America as a nation of equality – the left’s most important value.

If Ronald Reagan believed in the power of the individual, Barack Obama believes in the power of government.

These days, a mere fifteen months into the Messianic Age, one cannot swing a dead beaver without smacking into yet another Barack Obama initiative meant to extend the reach of government into the private sector. With every turn, with every step, this President pushes for some new transformation – he uses the word “reform” – some new way for the heavy hand of government to involve itself in our lives.

Obamacrats hate the free market system, carry disdain for the Constitution, look down on Americans who voice dissent, believe they have a mandate to reshape this country into their Marxist-light soft tyranny, and operate with a degree of arrogance and detachment that is almost beyond comprehension.

Sure, I can use the word “disgust,” but it is utterly insufficient. Even armed with a thesaurus and a respectable way with words, it is difficult to accurately convey my repulsion at what this President is doing to the United States.

In two days, the Messiah-In-Chief will arrive in New York to deliver what will essentially be a verbal beat-down to Wall Street. His so-called “financial overhaul package” proposal will be yet another cavalcade of regulations and restrictions placed on the private sector – more government say-so in areas they have no business being involved in.

It is absolutely sickening.

During the Bush years, all we heard from the left is how totalitarian “W” was – that he was the anti-freedom President. All we heard was how he and his right-wing cronies wanted to run everything and control our lives. Swastikas accompanied Bush’s face on protest posters. Comparisons to Adolf Hitler were commonplace. And despite today’s round of phony righteousness from the left at how some people dare refer to the Obama administration as a “regime,” back in the day, mainstream media tongue-flappers used that word to describe the Bush administration, including MSNBC’s own beacon of saliva-projection, Chris Matthews.

Yet, what seems to elude leftocrats is the fact that, by definition, conservatism means less government, less involvement, less control. It is Barack Obama and his bureaucrat fat cats – and that is precisely what they are – who want to dip their stinky little fingers in everyone’s cup cake.

Where are the Bush-era freedom lovers now?

The answer: Barack Obama is on the bridge. Therefore, the narrative needed to change.

Under George W. Bush, the encroachment of conservative oppression and fascism needed to be fought off by freedom-conscious dissenters. Under Barack Obama, Bush-era cowboy-style, money-hungry, out-of-control capitalism needs to be tamed by the soothing and nurturing hands of government.

The “financial overhaul package” will hit the Senate floor this week.

Democrats, of course, say these “reforms” are essential.

Republicans, thus far, are unanimously opposed.

And just for kicks, here’s a tasty little wrinkle to the story: No one in the White House bothered to inform the Mayor of New York that the President was coming to his city on Thursday to essentially beat New York’s bread and butter into government-controlled submission.

Arrogance, thy name is Obama.

Maggie Haberman of the New York Post writes:

Mayor Bloomberg learned from reading about — not from the White House — that President Obama is heading to the Big Apple on Thursday to talk about Wall Street reform at Cooper Union.

“I just saw on the blogs this morning he was coming, so I haven’t talked to anyone in the White House,” Bloomberg told reporters.

As it happens, Bloomberg has an Earth Day event scheduled at the same time as Obama’s speech.

The whole thing suggests that City Hall wasn’t given a heads-up about the visit.

Bloomberg has been less than warm and fuzzy about the proposed Wall Street crackdown by the Obama administration — saying it could hurt the city disproportionately.

“There’s no [government] regulation that will ever match self-regulation if it’s done correctly,” Bloomberg told reporters. “Just because the government can never keep up with everything. These are complex worlds we live in. That’s not true only of finance. That’s true of everything the government regulates.”

I assure you, I am no fan of Mike “Screw The Term Limits” Bloomberg, but he is right in opposing Barack Obama on this one. The result of the Obama iron boot to the throat of America’s financial center will be a whole lot of corporations – whose tax dollars are essential to New York City’s, and ultimately America’s, well-being – saying “bye-bye” and finding other places to operate … perhaps outside of America.

And what perfect timing.

Just as it was announced that there has been fraud at big bad Goldman Sachs – one of those evil corporations hell-bent on crushing average Americans like me – the President coincidentally announced he would be going to the epicenter of Western capitalism, New York City, to tell them how badly Wall Street needs reform.

There are no coincidences in politics.

When it comes to the Goldman Sachs investigation, Bloomberg said, “My concern is for all the people who work on Wall Street. My concern is for our police officers and firefighters and teachers and everybody else. They get paid by the taxes the financial industry and many others, but to a great extent the financial industry, generates in this city.”

The next Obama “shovel-ready” project may be the burying of Wall Street.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, Wall Street | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 19, 2010

Our President

I thought Barack Obama was going to be the “Diplomacy President.”

I understand that erupting volcanoes can be a royal pain in the rump – particularly when the resulting plume of ash is effectively blanketing the entire European continent. And I understand that I, as a relatively unimportant, everyday-joe, pick-up-my-coffee-at-7-11 kind of guy, have no real concept of the rigors and demands that come with being the American president. Furthermore, I “get” that even the most powerful man in the world needs some time to extricate himself from the pressures and stresses of the job.

(See how I set that up so nicely?)

I also understand that common courtesy is something that seems to elude the young, strapping Chicago meterosexual occupying the White House – that is, unless you count bowing to foreign heads of state and insulting Americans who listen to Rush Limbaugh common courtesy.

Indeed, it was Mother Nature who helped the powers-that-be decide that President Obama could not fly to Poland to attend the funeral of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who was killed, along with his wife, Maria, and a slew of top Polish government officials, in a tragic plane crash nine days ago. 

It goes without saying that Poland – a staunch ally of the United States – is in deep mourning.

Yet, with most of Europe still under a volcanic cloud, thanks to Iceland’s second major volcanic eruption in a month, the decision was made to cancel Obama’s trip there.

In principle, I have no problem with that. If that’s how it had to be, then so be it.

That ultimate decision, presumably, was up to the pilot and his crew.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also canceled due to the volcanic cloud.

Meanwhile, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev somehow made it from Moscow by plane, as did Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

With Obama’s cancellation, Sunday, it turned out, was a free day for him.

With nothing but a blank itinerary – and no new Rush Limbaugh programs to worry about for another twenty-four hours – the President decided that the best thing for a hard-working, over-worked, socialist-light Chief Executive to do was hit the links.

After all, since he would not going to the funeral anyway – and ultimately saving American’s critical tax dollars – what else was there for the man with the highest profile on planet earth to do?

Besides, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, along with the Vice-Buffoon, Joe Biden, already visited the Polish embassy to sign the book of condolences. Thus, by default, it was entirely unnecessary for the President of the United States to bother doing it himself.

Why waste what could be valuable time on the golf course giving a strong ally like Poland the common courtesy of personally acknowledging the death of their President?

Again, Sarkozy and Merkel cancelled their scheduled visits as well, but the Warsaw Business Journal commented that “there was no word as to whether they too had taken to the links.”

Good line.

I understand it wasn’t Hugo Chavez or Kim-Jong-il who was killed, but the President should have at least made some sort of effort to personally offer his condolences on what was an otherwise lazy Sunday afternoon, don’t you think?

He could have at least ordered the weekend staff at the Polish embassy a pizza, or hired some illegals to bring them a hand-written note saying, “Sorry your President died. Love, BHO.”

Poland is a friend to the United States.

They grieve.

A cancelled plane trip does not alleviate the moral responsibility of this president to recognize that fact.

The entire world saw our President playing golf while Poland buried its President.

The Polish embassy is less than three miles from the White House. Seeing as he couldn’t attend the funeral, he could have done the next best thing – the right thing – by taking a quick  jaunt up Connectucut Avenue to Florida Avenue to 16th Street to offer the Polish people his condolences. It would have been the classy move.

And it wouldn’t have taken very long at all. It wouldn’t have cut into his precious Sunday off. He would have been on his way to the golf course quicker than he could say , “I will be president of all the American people.”

It would have been the presidential thing to do.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 18, 2010


I thought the man-eating camels had gone extinct.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 16, 2010

Can we end this hallucinatory delusion that President Obama wants Democrats and Republicans to “come together” on anything? Can we toss that enchanted notion into the same receptacle as the “Pro-Life Democrat” and “post-partisan America”? When a big league leftist like Barack Obama says he wants people to “come together,” what he really means is that he wants Republicans to give in and come over to the Democrat side. The word “unity,” in Obama-speak, means everyone should think as he does.

For instance, a large portion of Americans are either part of, or sympathetic to, the Tea Party movement. These people have, without any national organization or leader, “unified” all across the country to speak out in opposition of Obama’s out of control growth of government – folks from all walks of life.

I’ve been to these rallies.

I’ve seen it first hand.

In the not so distant past, when dissent was as American as taking Betty Sue to the prom, Obamacrats would have applauded such a movement – provided the words “Bush lied” and “people died” were squeezed in somewhere. In those days, libs would have been the first to say that there is nothing more American than a wide-spread, coast-to-coast, non-violent grass roots movement by citizens with genuine concerns. Had it been a liberal movement, it would have been dubbed “a revolution.”

The President, however, doesn’t approve of that kind of unity. It’s not Obamacratic unity. And because it isn’t all about him, it isn’t real unity.

The man who is President of all these United States has cornered the market in a new kind of dismissive arrogance. In that head-tilting, superior-than-the-rest-of-us way of his – with a disapproval rating growing like caffeinated cancer cells – the Chief Executive has declared that the Tea Partiers should be thanking him.


Because he cut taxes, of course.

Erica Werner of the Associated Press writes:

President Barack Obama said Thursday he’s amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day. Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he’s cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.

“You would think they’d be saying thank you,” he said.

At that, many in the crowd at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts stood and yelled, “Thank you!”

How dare the President of the United States ridicule average Americans with genuine grievances. It is the Constitutional right of every American to assemble and peacefully protest against the actions of their government, whether those petitioners be dope-smoking, insect-infested, anti-war hippie-types or flag-waving defenders of liberty.

Unfortunately, the reality is abundantly clear: When liberals do it, it’s an act of patriotism, but when conservatives do so, it’s right-wing hate-mongering.

This “unifier” has gone out of his way to openly deride those who have the nerve to oppose him. It’s his version of a hissy fit. It may not be technically unconstitutional for him to do so, but it is embarrassingly and incalculably inappropriate for the President to exercise such contempt for the citizenry of his own country by unabashedly scoffing at them for opposing his policies. It is tremendously unpresidential, immeasurably childish and divisive beyond words.

How dare the President look down his nose at those Americans who took part in yesterday’s Tax Day protests. The ObamaCare bill that just passed – without a single Republican vote – is a veritable smorgasbord of tax increases, is it not? At some point, that bill we be coming due.

“Thank you?”

For what, pray tell?

For alienating and insulting fellow Americans? For implementing a plan that will cost Americans – both living and yet-to-be-born – unheard of amounts of money? For increasing government spending to unsustainable levels? For peddling the largest chunk of political excrement anyone’s ever heard by telling Americans that adding thirty million people to the insurance rolls will not increase costs? For letting the Bush tax cuts expire – which, by definition, is a tax increase? For quadrupling the deficit in a year?

There’s just so much to choose from.

That sound you hear is Barack Obama’s far left base high-fiving each other.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama Bonehead, Taxes, Tea Party | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 16, 2010

Vicious kitty.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 15, 2010

I understand that this is really an irrelevant point in the grand scheme of things. I “get” that there are an endless string of far more germane Obamacratic happenings that I could (and should) be spending my time analyzing and criticizing.

But I’m having a very difficult time keeping my disdain in check.

Or maybe I’m just in one of those nitpicky everything-Obama-does-pisses-me-off frames of mind.


Either way, I find this sort of thing so incredibly annoying … and profoundly unpresidential.

And while it is absolutely true that we have a President who exudes weakness to our enemies, turns a cold shoulder to our allies, has contempt for the free market, and believes that only government has the unique ability to solve problems (and should involve itself in every facet of American life), I find myself focusing on something entirely peripheral here. I find myself directing my attention toward the President’s propensity to speak like he’s chillin’ in front of the neighborhood bodega with his crew.

This bugs me.

This is my “fingers on a chalk board” moment.

Drew M., a regular blogger at the great Ace of Spades blog, posted a piece about the President and NASA, which is a good read in and of itself. As an aside, he wrote:

…(Obama) mentioned that Buzz Aldrin is ‘in the house’. Let me just say, I’m sick and tired of the President of the United States treating events as if they are comedy shows. “In the house” is a juvenile expression and simply an unworthy way to refer to these types of events.

Amen, brother.

“In the house?”

Is he kidding me?

What is this? The Astronaut Def Jam?

Was Joe Biden behind Obama with a turntable and headphones scratching out house beats, too?

When I read that, I had to peruse the transcript of the President’s comments today to see if I could come across any “Word to your mother” references, or “Yo, Buzz Dog” throw-ins.

Why doesn’t Barack Obama just break out his ATM card and use the corner of it as a toothpick ? Or stick his hands in his pants to adjust his shorts? Maybe a little gas passing at the podium with the microphone on could be added to the list of things Obama has done to make himself appear more like “one of us.”

This is his narcissism on grand display.

Everything is about him and how he is perceived. He doesn’t give a rat’s nostril about the Office of the Presidency. Whereas Ronald Reagan would never enter the Oval Office without wearing a tie, out of respect, Barack Obama kicks back and throws his shoes on the HMS Resolute desk.

The pomp and circumstance surrounding the office are annoyances to him. The traditions and customs associated with being Chief Exceutive are nothing but symbolic throwbacks to a darker and more hateful time.

Maybe he can get Wanda Sykes back to the White House for some of those cutting-edge comedy stylings. There are still some conservatives she hasn’t wished dead yet.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 15, 2010

Thanks to the lovely Amy for sending these along.

Consider this an expanded Picture of The Day post.


Have you ever slapped your forehead and asked yourself, “How the hell did this happen?”

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 13, 2010

From the, “No, Really?” file …

The Washington Times is reporting today that real personal income in the United States has dropped 3.2% since Barack Obama became the Big Cheese fifteen months ago. (It’s only been fifteen months?) This figure excludes government payouts (e.g., Social Security, food stamps, welfare in general) – all the things Democrats rely on to keep a sizeable chunk of the citizenry dependant and, thus, in their corner.

Not that it should actually come as any shock to anyone.

“This is hardly surprising,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can’t spend its way to prosperity.”

Joseph Curl at the Washington Times points out that when the Messiah was still a mere campaign-trail cliché machine, the soon-to-be President “often derided (President George W.) Bush for what he said were dramatically falling incomes for workers.”

“American families, since George Bush has been in office, have seen average family incomes go down $2,000,” Mr. Obama said in a September 2008 speech on the economy in Green Bay, Wis.

It isn’t my wont to rain on people’s parades, but an insertion of the truth right about now seems to be in order. Real income increased almost 13% during the eight years of Bush – which included an inherited Clinton-era recession and the attacks of September 11, 2001.

I can almost guarantee you won’t hear that coming out of Obama’s mouth.

The bureau, which doesn’t compile statistics on “family” income, reported that per capita income rose during Mr. Bush’s two terms, from $29,159 to $32,632 (using 2005 dollar values as a base). During Mr. Obama’s 15 months in office, per capita income has dropped nearly 1 percent to $32,343.

It must be a plot.

In fact, it probably wouldn’t surprise anyone to find out that a certain well-organized segment of the population – specifically the racist, caucasion-loving, diety-digging anti-Obama ranks – have voluntarily taken pay cuts, or agreed to leave their jobs altogether, in order to make the President look bad.

No one on the left would put it past them.

Just one question for the President and Crew: How exactly does increasing taxes help this situation?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 13, 2010

He’s actually done it better before. There’s been a noticeable deterioration in his form since he presented the top of his head to Saudi royalty last year.

That was his finest hour.

Since then, he’s lagged a bit.

His performance for the Emperor of Japan, for example, was a bit fractured and forced; and for Pam Iorio, Mayor of Tampa, Florida, he seemed to be going through the motions.

He’s lost something.

I don’t know if it comes down to complacency, or simply a lack of practice, but President Obama doesn’t seem to be in touch with his submissive side as he once was. He just doesn’t acquiesce and exude weakness with the same verve and vigor he did in the early days of the Messianic Age.

He just doesn’t bow like he used to.

For those of the Kumbaya ilk, it’s understandibly troubling.

Don’t get me wrong. Those of us on the thinking end of the spectrum still understand that this President is the undisputed poster child for the new age of American weakness and appeasement. His policies are still a case study in how to relinquish superpower status without really trying.

But with his latest bow – this time to the Communist Chinese President – he seems to have some of the subservience that has defined him.

Frankly, it was a painfully weak bow – almost as if he wasn’t sure if he was going to go through with it. It was like he suddenly forgot how to peddle a bicycle, but remembered in the nick of time, just before he hit the mailbox.

It just didn’t have the same emasculating feel the bow to the Suadi king had.

As far as I’m concerned, if you’re going to embarrass your country (and yourself) by portraying utter submissiveness to a ChiCom, make it count. Bend all the way over. Let the Communist get a good look at those follicles. Offer to tongue-clean his shoes while you’re there. Get those babies as clear as glass by buffing them with an American flag.

Bammy’s definitely lost a step.

When a bonafide knee-pad leftist can’t even bend over and grab the ankles properly in the presence of a commie, you have to wonder what the world is coming to.

Now, THAT'S a bow

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 12, 2010

If, indeed, you believe there is such a thing as “political capital,” then you must concede that President Barack Obama, like the country he is charged to serve, is in serious debt. Following the passage of ObamaCare late last month, despite some early erroneous reports, there wasn’t a scinitilla of boost in support for the President or his road-to-single-payer-health-care plan. As predicted by many, the approval/disapproval numbers for ObamaCare remained pretty much as they were before the bill passed. Democrats did not start to feel to mood of the country shift, nor did they see support for the Obamacratic heavy-hand-of-government tip the scales in their favor.

Disapproval for the plan has been – and continues to be – over 50%.

Indeed, the President has continued to behave like a drunken, horny sailor on leave, withdrawing haphazardly from his “approval” account, plunging his administration into an ever-growing spiraling support deficit. Poll after poll confirms this. The American people are rejecting Obamacratic radicalism. As a reward for their dissent (something that was tremendously patriotic just a few years ago), they are being ignored … after being insulted.

And while anti-Obamacare sentiment across the nation remains strong and unwavering, one thing that is changing is the President’s collapsing approval rating – now at a new low.

Real Clear Politics (RCP) puts his overall disapproval rating at just over 47%, a point better than his overall approval rating, now at 46%.

His RCP Poll Average approval rating has never been lower.

If I may draw from the “I Hope He Fails” handbook … isn’t it now obvious that the United States would have been best served if President Obama would have failed?

Is it now clear what all of us meant when we openly hoped for the failure of President Obama? 

Meanwhile, as Congress returns from the Easter break this week, the mood on Capitol Hill, according to Fox News, is one of “So now what?”

Congress finally passed health care reform in late March before finally abandoning Washington for two weeks. Lawmakers return this week. And no one quite knows what they’re going to do between now and the end of the year.

“I’m not really sure,” responded one senior staffer when I asked what was on tap when Congress returned to session.

“Are you kidding me?” said another. “I still haven’t recovered from health care.”

“I’m golfing,” replied another.

It may be April. But in Congress, the calendar may as well read December. Because almost anything of consequence for the 111th Congress is in the books.

Senators are still smarting from the bruising health care fight. So it’s doubtful that the Senate has the energy, let alone the votes, to tackle the controversial climate bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) muscled through her chamber nearly a year ago.

Trust me … the “bruising” wasn’t severe enough.

Gaze upon the splendor of leftism.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 12, 2010

It’s not unlike a hungry cat being stuck in a room with one thousand cans of tuna fish and no can opener.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 9, 2010


(Actually, quite believable).

There is ostensibly nothing – absolutely nothing – the current administration will not endeavor to involve itself in (except competent national security). Perhaps a better way to state it is that this administration believes nothing should be beyond the reach (and direct influence) of government.


With an audacity remeniscent of a chorus of crunching jackboots slowly approaching from just over the hill, Obamacrats – the same folks that recently turned over the student loan system to the federal government simply because they felt like it – is on a no-holds-barred course of seizing and controlling as much of the private sector as it possibly can.

I am well aware of how that sounds, but I assure you, this is not paranoia.

These are not radical right-wing talking points.

If you want radicals, just look to the White House and Capitol Hill.

America has never seen anything quite like the way this administration operates. The will of the people be damned, and to hell with the Constitution, never has a President ever attempted, in such a short amount of time and in such a brazenly agenda-driven anti-American way (yes, anti-American), to imbue the heavy hand of government in everything possible. Not like this. The President, in fact, seems to have made it his central focus to thrash whatever maxims of American liberty repulse him (which, being a disciple of Saul Alinsky, means just about everything). He’s doing so with a deaf ear and an iron mallet of relentless leftism – the master overseer of the largest, most intrusive and controlling government monster ever to occupy this part of the North American continent.

This is just the latest episode of “Power To the State!”

It seems that Bammy and Crew have decided that they are not happy with the concept of the unpaid internship. In fact, the Labor Department is now looking into the legality of having someone serve as an intern, without pay, at any for-profit enterprise in the United States; and if the President gets his way, these private sector unpaid internships – meaning free-market, free-enterprise agreements made between private business owners and willing individuals (almost always college students looking to gain critical experience as well as college credits) – will go the way of betamax machines, rotary telephones and (eventually) American liberty itself.

From Fox Nation:

“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy Leppink, deputy administrator of the department’s wage and hour division, according to a story in the New York Times.

It’s easy to view the action as the inevitable mischief of Democrats, irritating but not fatal. Such an attitude, however, overlooks what a blow this policy can represent to young people trying to establish careers.

Back in our parents’ or grandparents’ days, interns were mostly thought of as physicians-in-training. Eventually, an internship came to mean an initial training experience, perhaps unpaid, for people on the cusp of entering the workforce. This stepping stone to a hoped-for paid job became commonplace in many industries and a rite of passage for the college set, especially Ivy Leaguers.

These temporary positions became popular partly due to prosperity. During the past half century, many U.S. college students enjoyed the luxury of trying out different fields whereas previous generations had to make career choices quickly.

In other words, the Chief Executive of the United States is telling (nay, dictating to) this nation’s young people – America’s future, I’ve heard the President call them – that they will no longer have the option (the right to choose, you might say) of volunteering his or her time with a privately-owned, free market enterprise. The point of such internships, of course, is to afford prospective interns the opportunity to gain vital experience that will, in turn, make them productive and valuable assets in the work force. Yet, the President of the United States has decided, by whim and whisper, that he will put the kibosh on a system of learning, training and invaluable networking that has helped sustain the very existence of America’s free-market system by literally helping to provide for its future in the best and most efficient way possible.

Not that Barack Obama is particularly enamored with free enterprise.

Incidentally, one needn’t receive money to be “paid.” Experience is often a more valuable commodity in the work force at that early stage of a person’s professional life. Unpaid internships are wonderfully important resume fillers. Bosses look for things like that.

The real question is: How in the world is doing away with unpaid internships good for America? How does eliminating such a thing benefit this country’s young people looking to prepare for their futures?

This is simply unbelievable.

(I keep saying that. Actually, it’s very believable).

Mr. President, these are individual choices made by free Americans! Stay the hell out of it!

Erick Erickson at Red State points out, if Obama gets his way, young people will still have the option to volunteer with the government.


If you want to work as a Congressional or White House intern, for Organizing for America, or any other non-profit, they’ll let you do it. But if you want to actually work for a business that produces goods and services in the free market? You’re screwed as is the business. And guess what? Existing workers will be spread more thinly and college kids will wait longer and longer for jobs.

My next question (in a long list of thousands) would be to ask whether or not this policy applies to non-profit organizations as well. Would these new anti-intern laws pertain to left-wing “community organizing” groups, too? Or will some enterprising Capitol Hill Democrat try to devise a workaround of some sort to allow the likes of ACORN (or whatever it’s called now) to indoctrinate – er, take on interns?

Or is this just a blatant, in-your-face, no-need-to-cloak-it assault on the free-market system?

Honestly, there can be no other purpose here than to intentionally hamstring free enterprise.

The President of the United States does not – repeat, does not – have the authority to curtail rights guaranteed to the people of the United States in the Constitution – namely, the freedom of assembly (and, by extension and definition, the freedom of association). How is it possible for the Chief Executive to say that it will be against the law for me, or anyone, to volunteer my time anywhere I damn well please (assuming that institution is not engaging in illegal activity)?  Do I not have the right to charge an individual or company for my services, if I so choose? And if I decide to charge nothing for those services, do I not have that right as well?

These are choices that I make, as an individual.

This has nothing to do with the President, Congress, the government, the cleaning lady or anyone other than the privately owned enterprise that wants to have an intern, and the individual who wishes to be an intern.

No one is being taken advantage of, no one is being cheated, no deception of any kind is taking place.

We leave that to the government.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Nanny State | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 8, 2010

You can say it over and over again, but it is irrelevant to liberals. Regardless of the numbers – no matter how lopsided the percentages are – it will never be enough for America’s leftocracy.

They use beguiling words and phrases like “fair share” and “impartiality” but don’t really mean it.

They go on and on about equality – liberalism’s most important value – but in practice, spit upon the concept … or should I say spit upon America’s most successful citizens.

The fact is: the top ten percent of wage earners in the United States pay nearly three-quarters of all income tax.

Unfortunately, that isn’t enough for Obamacrats.

In truth, there is no such thing as “enough” when it comes to leftist confiscation (and redistribution) of the private property of America’s money makers.

The President, and his free-enterprise-pulverizing band of economy-crippling sadists, are hell-bent on creating some sort of sweeping “equality” by knocking down America’s top performers a few pegs (i.e., punishing them), rather than encouraging people to elevate themselves.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the scale, the bottom chunk of wage-earning Americans actually make a profit from the federal government.

That’s right … make a profit.

Stephen Ohlemacher from the Associated Press writes:

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

“We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

This year, nearly half of all Americans will pay no federal income tax.

Not a penny.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education.

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.

There’s fair … and then there’s fair.

The reality that more money in the pockets of Americans is actually a good thing – that people do not respond to having more of their own earnings to spend by stashing it away under the high school yearbook in the upstairs closet – absolutely eludes the left.

Facts can be awfully tenacious.

More revenue finds its way into Uncle Sam’s tax collection box when people have more of their own money available to purchase goods and services.

Even my nine year old nephew gets that.

Of course, he hasn’t been to university yet.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 8, 2010


Who needs AC?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 7, 2010

If the American economy were personified, it would be a kidnap victim, huddled in the corner, frightened and scarred from the constant abuse it had to withstand from its captors, begging for mercy, screaming, “Stop! Stop!”

The kidnappers, of course, would have to be the Obamacrats in charge, relentless, careless, sadistic.

What better way to characterize an administration engaged in a kind of brutality that can only lead one to believe that the crippling of the American economy must be the goal?

Why is it that the solution to all liberal economic woes is to tax its citizenry more?

Paul Volcker, adviser to the President, said yesterday that instituting more taxes on the American people – in the European style – is a very real possibility.

What better way to deal with out of control, runaway government spending?

Yes indeed … more taxes.

Increase government’s claim on private property. That’ll work.

From Reuters:

The United States should consider raising taxes to help bring deficits under control and may need to consider a European-style value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.

Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax “was not as toxic an idea” as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary.

Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves. “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

How refreshing it would be to hear an elected official, regardless of what side of the aisle he or she is on, say: “If at the end of the day we need to cut spending, we should cut spending.”

There’s no “if” about it.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 7, 2010

Talk about trusting.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 6, 2010

I already wrote, at length, about the President’s misguided and, frankly, infantile aspirations of a nuclear weapons free world in my piece “If We Could Just Get Rid of Those Blasted Nuclear Weapons…

I won’t bother reiterating those arguments here.

I will, however, engage in a little head shaking – something that has become a habit since January 20, 2009 – at Barack Obama’s latest mystifying act as Commander In Chief.

With the eyes and ears of the entire world on him – including the enemies of the United States – the President has decided that his puerile, hacky-sack, dorm-room, raped-by-academia ambitions of a fuzzy-bunny-world trump the security of the country he is charged to preserve, protect and defend.

He has announced, inexplicably, that even if the United States is attacked biologically, chemically, or is crippled by a cyber-attack of some kind by a non-nuclear state that happens to be adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, she will not retaliate with nuclear weapons.

That way, one of the banes of all leftism – the disproportionate response – can be avoided, and America will finally be respected and loved throughout the world.

So, in other words, as long as the bad guys are not using nukes – instead keeping their destruction confined to, say, chemical weapons (like VX gas, for instance) – the enemy can rest assured that the United States will never tap into its mushroom cloud makers. In the mind of Barack Obama, a million dead Americans as a result of a biological attack would not be enough to justify a nuclear response.

That sound you hear are the enmies of America shaking with fear.

Or maybe they’re just laughing.

From the New York Times:

President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

This is pure insanity.

There are no words to adequately depict the contempt I have for this man in context of his role as leader of the free world. I’d venture to say that it is certainly equal (at the very least) to the level of disdain he shows for his country and Constitution. That he is actually in charge of defending the United States of America is dumbfounding.

In Obama’s world, if Iran launches a chemical or biological attack on the United States, then the option to use nuclear weapons as a response suddenly becomes an acceptible one because they “violated the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation”

Is this man serious?

(This is the same thinking that yields the belief that coercive and aggressive interrogation of enemy combatants is an unnecessary tactic, except in a ticking time-bomb scenario with millions of innocent lives hanging in the balance, as Senator John McCain has suggested. If the tactic is useful in that situation to extract critical information, then wouldn’t it be useful at any time?)

So, President Obama, who by default is conceding that nuclear weapons are, in fact, this nation’s most powerful deterrent, would be punishing Iran for going nuclear? Not for the biological attack itself? And if a nation that doesn’t have nuclear weapons orchestrates the same type of attack, our response will be a more measured, thoughtful, considerate one?


Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

I suppose there is a long list of instances where the enemy has looked upon America and said, “Damn, those Yanks are right. We’ve got to give up our evil ambitions and embrace peace. Look at what they’re doing over there. We’ve been fools!”

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

This is extraordinary.

How in the world does this make the United States safer?

Mr. President, there is nothing to fear when the good guys have the weapons.


Now let’s say it all together … Liberals cannot be trusted with national security.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 5, 2010

This is yet another instance where a liberal myth – a provably false premise constructed by Leftocrat Lego slingers – is shot down in a fiery ball of ruin and truth. Like fairy tales and childhood air castles, liberal delusions spun as facts – and peddled as such by a compliant mainstream media – are soon crushed like so much garlic under the mallet of reality.

Indeed, liberals act as if their fractured theories and unsubstantiated claims about the problems confronting Americans – solutions that require more government intrusion into our lives – are accepted facts (e.g., manmade global warming). Liberals behave as if conservatives are the divisive ones when they are constantly injecting race and class into every argument. They are obsessed with differences, although liberalism’s highest value is equality. Ultimately, underscoring their never-ending assault on conservatism as an inherently bigoted and compassionless ideology is the reality that liberals are masters at projecting their own antiquated focuses, conceptions and biases onto conservatives.

The way it works is this: Liberals say something – over and over again – and it suddenly becomes true. Liberal conventional wisom is born from maddening repetition and weaned on the nurturing bosom of an accommodating mainstream media.

Unfortunately for liberals, facts often get in the way of a good hallucination.

This is just the latest smack down.

But deterring a liberal is much like trying to hold back a tsunami with a spaghetti strainer – or listening to Nancy Pelosi and expecting coherence.

It ain’t easy.

So, what is it this time?

The myth that Tea Party members are nothing but a bunch of right-wing, God-happy, pistol-loving, pickup-truck driving, racist homphobes (i.e., Republicans and conservatives).

In fact, a huge chunk of them are from “the other side.”

Sean J. Miller of The Hill writes:

Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey.

The findings provide one of the most detailed portraits to date of the grassroots movement that started last year.

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.

The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people — said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.”

“It’s a good sample size,” said David

Winston, the polling firm’s director. “It will certainly give us an initial base to follow where these folks are.”

Who would thought that 4 in 10 non-Republican Americans would fall victim to the charisma of hate, perpetrated best by such anti-unifiers as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham? Who’d have thought so many middle-left Americans would be vulnerable to the charming malevolence of talk radio and Fox News?

Liberals portray things the way they wish them to be – the very reason liberalism is a childish notion.

wordpress statistics

Posted in politics, Tea Party | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 5, 2010

The vacation photo that will get all the attention.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2010

The news today is that the President of the United States is set to “rewrite” America’s policy on nuclear weapons sometime next week. What that really means is the President has decided a weaker America is a more lovable America.

The immediate objective is to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal while refraining from developing new systems. The ultimate objective is to do away with nuclear weapons altogether.

From the Times of London, via Fox News:

After a review of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal that has involved, among others, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the intelligence services, as well as the White House, Obama is expected to reject the doctrine on nuclear weapons — the “nuclear posture” — adopted by George W. Bush, which included the possibility of the United States launching an attack on a non-nuclear state.

In January, I commented on this painfully asinine, immeasurably naïve and potentially catastrophic approach to national security.

Because this is such an important issue – and because the commentary is timely – it is definitely worth revisiting:

The screeching unclean masses say that war is not the answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. The socially conscious (and perpetually stoned) regale the world with chants of “give peace a chance,” but peace without victory only means the side of goodness has acquiesced for the time being. The President once said that the United States will extend its hand if the enemy is willing to unclench its fist – bend-overism at its best.

But such a gesture is not, and never can be, proffered from a position of strength, and the enemy knows it. The enemy exploits it.

Can there be anyone quite as naïve as a man – the most powerful man in the world, let’s say – thinking that a nuclear weapon-free world is not only something to aspire to, but something that is realistically attainable?

Liberals are almost adorable when they try to be serious. Unfortunately, the stakes are way too high for fun and games.

Why, first of all, is it at all desirable to do away with nuclear weapons given the realities of human existence? What, exactly, would such a feat accomplish? If the world is rid of them – which really means, if the West is rid of them – what then? Does the technology suddenly not exist?

That must be it.

Just like the “War on Terror” doesn’t seem so “George Bushy” if we simply call it an “Overseas Contingency Operation,” or Islamo-fascist terrorism don’t seem so pervasive if we call terrorists “isolated extremists,” the world will seem like a far better place if those nasty bombs are dismantled and filed away next to the aging surplus of pet rocks and mood rings.

Out of sight, out of mind wins the liberal day.

Regardless of the reasons, or the projected effects, or the feasibility, one of President Obama’s stated goals is to do away with all nuclear weapons. To children, dope smokers, tenured professors and MSNBC anchors, it all sounds so stone-cold groovy. No more nukes, baby! Whether or not the President will dispatch disciples to shove flowers into the rifle barrels of military personnel is unclear, but one thing is for certain: there are lots of fists that need unclenching, and lots of hugs just waiting to be shared.

And Obama is the man to make it happen.

To Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, this isn’t a values issue. It’s about the technology. Rather than focus on the ideologies and religious fanaticism that make these weapons a genuine threat to countries like the United States and Israel, the weapons themselves – along with the fact that the United States possesses so many of them – is really the problem.

Shall we all just pretend that such capabilities are make-believe? Will the world magically be safer when those blasted mushroom cloud making boom-booms go away? Is it reasonable to assume that the bad guys will then rethink what they’re doing when they see nations like the United States and Israel disarming?

The naivety and silliness of wishing to make the world a “nuclear weapon-free zone” cannot accurately be charted. Technology has not advanced that far. Childish wish-lists and theoretical gobbledygook contrived in the halls of academia have little to do with the real world.

Perhaps the better question is: why is it so desirable for the “good guys” to do away with them? What example are we trying to set? That the powerful shall not defend themselves? That only rogues, terrorists and despots shall have such weapons? This is akin to arguing with an anti-Second Amendment zealot who can never explain why weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are a bad thing.

The fact is, nuclear weapons exist because they must exist.

(“What?” ask libs, confused, confounded.)

Deadbolts and car alarms must exist because some people steal. Pepper spray and mace must exist because some people assault the innocent. Police must exist because some people do bad things.

It’s really quite simple.

And if countries that wish to “lead by example” do away with the most powerful weapons in their arsenals, knowing that evil does exist, they are as stupid and careless as someone who leaves the door to his or her home swinging wide open when they go out.

The world is in no danger with free nations in possession of these – or any – weapons.

If, for example, in a Barack Obama world of fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies, the United States and her allies were nuclear-weapon free, and a nuclear attack should take place in a city like New York or London or Tel-Aviv, then what? We should feel good that, at least, we stood by our principles?

In the real world, such cartoonish objectives aren’t rational, as Bammy is finding out.

Paul Richer of the Los Angeles Times writes:

President Obama’s ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.

Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America’s military strategy and foreign policy.

The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far. He described the debate as “spirited. . . . I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented.”

What kind of deterrence is the President in favor of in a nuclear weapon-free world? Name calling? A threat not to have Obama’s hand extended to them? God forbid, sanctions?

The world shivers and shakes.

The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international arms-control pact.

The timing of the administration debate on the nuclear review is crucial, because a key international meeting on the treaty is planned for May in New York.

Also looming this year are other elements of Obama’s nuclear agenda, including renewal of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia and a push for Senate ratification of a global ban on nuclear testing.

The nonproliferation treaty has been weakened in recent years by the spread of nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. But nonnuclear countries are wary of intrusive new rules, arguing that though the United States preaches nuclear arms control to others, it has failed to live up to its own promises to disarm.

For Obama, the stakes are high. The difficulties posed by challenges in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and the Middle East underscore the need for progress on arms control.

Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of expectations that he would make good on his pledge to reduce the nuclear threat.

Indeed, the threat in a world with nuclear weapons is in who has them – which means it isn’t about the weapons at all, but rather the values of those who seek to possess them. That means the United States (i.e., the President) must be able to summon, with crystal-clear clarity, the courage to make judgments and, without equivocation, openly name the evils that threaten us.

For those who came in after the credits, I’ll repeat … there is no threat whatsoever when the good guys – yes, we are the good guys – possess nuclear weapons.


It’s all about values, values, values.

In other news, liberals still cannot be trusted with national security.

wordpress statistics

Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2010

There can be no question that this will be interpreted as a vicious initiative spearheaded by southern racists, stars-and-bars enthusiasts and assorted Klan sympathizers. This will assuredly be defined as a hate crime of some sort, instigated by melanin-obsessed rifle lovers hell-bent on removing the big-mouthed colored guy from the White House. To liberals (and other children), it is expected – a given – that such affronts to human decency would be effected south of the Mason-Dixon line. 

And what, pray tell, is this latest assault to civility? This latest outrage to end all outrages? This newest example of the right’s incursion against American unity? 


Anti-Obama billboards in Georgia – very conspicuous and straight to the point. 

Bill Liss from NBC 11 in Atlanta writes: 

One group is taking freedom of speech and freedom of expression to the limits in a series of Metro Atlanta highway billboards voicing strong opinions against President Barack Obama. 

The billboards are the latest move to sway public opinion — and for a price you can have your say. 

The signs are in a series of four digital billboards ranging in price from $2,500 to $3,500 a month. They offer pre-packaged messages like “Stop Obama Socialism,” or one that can be seen at Spaghetti Junction saying “Now it’s personal.” 

The group behind the billboards call themselves 

Visitors also have the option of designing a billboard themselves. 

Of course, this will only agitate and trigger the seemingly never-ending cavalcade of dinosaur race baiters into their tactless and detestable testimonials about how much the tea parties are reminiscent of the anti-civil rights movement of the mid-20th Century. This approach is cut from the same cloth that saw Democrats, in lieu of substance and coherence, trot out every sob-story and woe-begotten tale of insuranceless Americans prior to the ultimate passage of ObamaCare. 

The tax-cheat, Congressman Charlie Rangel, for example – who, for some reason is not wearing prison orange and is still serving in Congress – will undoubtedly keep his gums flapping about racism and bigotry and hatred and whatever other buzzwords he can throw out there in an attempt to land him the sound bite on one of the ever-fading alphabet news channels. 

Congresswoman Maxine Waters will probably express outrage at the fact that these billboard-creating haters are using the colors red, white and blue as a backdrop for their messages of divisiveness and revulsion. 

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews can continue explaining how opposing ObamaCare is similar to supporting segregation to all eleven of his viewers. 

So, the question is (and always has been): What exactly does non-racist, non-bigoted, non-vitriolic dissent sound like? 

If you ask the President of the United States himself, it isn’t talk radio. 

While speaking with CBS’s Harry Smith, this exchange took place

SMITH: Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation about you? 

OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, it’s pretty apparent, and it’s troublesome. Keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when you have an economy that is making people more anxious, and people are feeling as if there’s a lot of change that needs to take place. But that’s not the vast majority of Americans. I think the vast majority of Americans know that we’re trying hard, that I want what’s best for the country … 

Smith mentioned that he had recently been “out and about, spending time, listening to ‘talk radio’ (whatever that means), and had heard Obama called a socialist, and even a Nazi. 

First of all, if the government takeover of car companies, banks, federal student loans and healthcare industry is not a well-defined and unambiguous step toward socialism, then the word has no meaning. 

Second, no one that I know of on conservative talk radio has ever said “Barack Obama is a Nazi.” No one. Such a sound bite would have saturated the news cycles of the mainstream media. Liberals are not only masters of milking the “out of context” sound bite, they are ones fond of equating conservatives with the Third Reich. (See Senator Dick Durbin, as well as hundreds of anti-war protests during the Bush years). 

Incidentally, Barack Obama likes to grab kittens by their ears and twirl them in circles until they either vomit or lose consciousness. 

No, I’ve not seen such a thing, nor do I have proof, but I’ve said it – so it must be true, right? 

What’s troublesome is that this man – the least presidential Chief Executive in my lifetime – still has almost three years left in office … minimum. 






wordpress statistics

Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics, Rush Limbaugh, socialism, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2010

I remember when “back to school” sales meant notebooks, rulers and loose leaf paper.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 1, 2010

From the “No, Really” file …

Earlier this morning, on his nationally syndicated radio show, Mike Gallagher played a sensationally delicious sound bite from March 25th featuring Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson (Cynthia McKinney’s replacement) and Admiral Robert Willard, Commander of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet, speaking about the island of Guam – specifically the topic of sending more troops there.

This was a troublesome proposition for the Georgia Congressman.

His fear?

That Guam could capsize from the influx of people.


This was the exchange … literally:

JOHNSON: This is a island that, at its widest level is – what – twelve miles from shore to shore, and at its smallest level – or its smallest location – is seven miles between one shore an another. Is that correct?

WILLARD: I don’t have the exact dimensions but, to your point sir, I think Guam is a small island.

JOHNSON: Very small island … and about twenty-four miles, if I recall, long … so about twenty-four miles long, about seven miles wide at the least widest place on the island, and about twelve miles wide on the widest part of the island. And .. I don’t know how many square miles that is. Do you happen to know?

WILLARD: I don’t have that figure with me, sir. I can certainly supply it to you, if you’d like.

JOHNSON: Yeah, my fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.

WILLARD: We don’t anticipate that. The Guam population, I think, currently is about 175,000 and again, with 8,000 Marines and their families, that’s an addition of about 25,000 more into the population.

My editorial staff here at Roman Around – along with a contingency of historians, geologists, stand-up comedians and filling station attendants – have spent the better part of nine minutes scouring news databases and archives looking for any instances of capsizing islands due to overpopulation. Some of the best researchers on my block have taken the time to comb through websites, encyclopedias and limited edition comic books to try and find a single instance where an island literally tipped over due to the abundance of human beings there.

In full candor, we have been unsuccessful to this point, but we may keep trying … maybe.

To begin with … as dim-witted as the assertion of an island capsizing because too many people are threatening its buoyancy sounds, what was more confusing was his fractured attempt (and I use that word with two underlines and a bold italic font) to talk about the island’s dimensions.

What the hell was he talking about?

At its widest point, it is twelve miles long, but the island is actually twenty-four mils long? What?

Watch the people sitting behind Admiral Willard. They’re all reacting as if they’re watching a Saturday Night Live routine but cannot laugh out loud because they don’t want to wake grandma. Even the admiral himself – if you look closely – appears as if he has to contain himself from busting out at Congressman Johnson’s marble-headed, mush-mouthed stupidity.

Second, has Congressman Johnson ever heard of Manhattan?

The total land area of Manhattan Island is 23 square miles.

That’s it.

Twenty-three square miles! (Guam has a land area of 209 total square miles).

Manhattan is only about two miles wide (and still takes an hour to get across). It is the most densely populated county in the United States with a population of 1.6 million people. At any given point during the regular work day, it is estimated that as many as fifteen million human being occupy Manhattan Island’s 23 total square miles. Figure in more cars, trucks, buses and trains than you can shake a knish at – along with a heaviest collection of skyscrapers assembled anywhere – and you’ve got a real scale-tipper.

At least in my lifetime – to the best of my knowledge – I have not known Manhattan to “tip over and capsize” due to the abundance of humans.

But I’ll keep checking.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 1, 2010


Mailbox of the day!

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