Archive for May, 2010
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 31, 2010
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 28, 2010
This may actually be the best thing to happen to Arizona since the passage of the illegal immigration law. This may be the thing that allures folks to come to the Grand Canyon State on vacation or convinces those still looking for a place to host their convention to go there.
Let’s hope so.
To fracturedly quote a well-known phrase: ‘Ich bin ein Arizonian.’
The muster of numbskulls, dimwits, half-wits and pampered millionaires who say they will be boycotting Arizona because of the state’s new illegal alien law is growing.
Not that any of these blockheads – who have profited beyond their wildest dreams in the land of liberty – know what is in the Arizona law.
Not that these knee-jerk twits actually comprehend what it is they’re supposedly taking a stand against.
Not that these sanctimonious savants of social-consciousness – lunkheads – even have a palpable clue what is in the Constitution of the United States (although they can quote, at will, the “Separation of Church and State” clause, and the government-granted “right” to “general welfare.”)
Now that a host of “artists” have decided to boycott Arizona – including rapper Kanye West and film maker Michael Moore – things are definitely looking up. In fact, Michael Moore’s promised truency from the state immediately ensures that there will be more food available for the metropolitan areas of Tulsa and Flagstaff.
Let the good times roll.
Zack de la Rocha has issued a statement on behalf of an organization called the Sound Strike urging music fans and fellow artists to boycott Arizona “to stop SB 1070,” which he labels an “odious” law.
Among those artists joining de la Rocha’s boycott are Conor Oberst, Kanye West, Rage Against the Machine, Rise Against, Cypress Hill, Serj Tankian, Joe Satriani, Sonic Youth, Tenacious D, Street Sweeper Social Club and Michael Moore.
In de la Rocha’s words, the new law “sanctions racial profiling, straight up,” forcing “cops to hunt down and target anyone they ‘reasonably suspect’ that may be undocumented. And if the people they harass don’t have proof that they were born in the U.S., they can be detained and arrested.”
This is an honest question, not meant to incite anyone, but for the purposes of clarification: Were all of these people born flaming idiots, or was it something that was cultivated over the course of time? Do leftists actually go out of their way to portray themselves as complete dunderheads or are they truly oblivious to the things they say?
What in the name of free enterprise is this dullard talking about?
There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the law that statess, suggests, implies or hints that police are going to be forced to hunt down anyone.
Is he serious?
Make note of Mr. de la Rocha’s choice of words: “And if the people they harass don’t have proof that they were born in the U.S., they can be detained and arrested.”
There is such wisdom on the left, isn’t there?
To begin with, being “born in the U.S.” is not the only prerequisite to being in this country legally. There are such things as legal aliens.
Second, the law clearly – unambiguously – states that people who are stopped or questioned in lawful ways (e.g., a traffic stop) can also be asked about their legal status if there is a reasonable suspicion that they could be here illegally.
I’m still waiting for an intelligible answer to the question: How exactly is that racist?
The real beef these whack jobs have is that illegal immigration laws are finally being enforced.
How dare Arizona apply laws already on the books.
And if I may get a little personal for a moment: In the spirit of full disclosure, I’ve been told I look a little Hispanic (if I may “profile” myself), and if a law enforcement official – or any proper authority, for that matter – wishes to see my identification, so be it. What do I care? I have nothing to hide.
The fact is, society is filled with measures that are in place to protect citizens while still preserving individual rights. For instance, my bags are checked before I enter Citi Field to see the Mets play. I’ve also had my knapsack checked several times before going on the Staten Island ferry. My pockets are emptied each time I go through an airport secutity checkpoint. My drivers license is produced every time I go to the post office to retrieve a package.
And so on.
I’ve been asked to prove that I live in my neighborhood when the street has been blocked due to a traffic accident or police investigation. I’ve been pulled over for traffic violations and have, undoubtedly, been “checked out” by the police.
He goes on to note that “Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiling, but this law (SB 1070) takes it to a whole new low. If other states follow the direction of the Arizona government, we could be headed towards a pre-civil rights era reality.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Disgustingly wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Profoundly wrong.
Since when is producing identification akin to Jim Crow?
Being asked for ID, or proper paperwork, is not an infringement of anyone’s civil rights. There isn’t a device in existence capable of measuring how asinine such an assertion is.
This is about illegal aliens – not citizens or legal aliens.
This is about following the rule of law in exercising this nation’s sovereign authority to properly and legally identify those who are not authorized to be here, regardless of their skin color or ethnicity.
This is about protecting American citizens and legal aliens, regardless of their skin color or ethnicity.
This unjust law was set into motion by the same Arizona government that refused to acknowledge Martin Luther King Jr. day as a national holiday. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, they arrested her. As a result, people got together and said we are not going to ride the bus until they change the law. It was this courageous action that sparked the Montgomery bus boycott. What if we got together, signed a collective letter saying, ‘We’re not going to ride the bus?’ “
The Arizona law, by definition, is absolutely just. The only distinction it makes is between legal and illegal.
What is unjust, however, is that illegal aliens are coddled by this country and given places to go where they can’t be punished for breaking the law. What is unjust is that the welfare of illegal aliens – along with winning the favor of the Hispanic voting block – is more of a priority for Obamacrats than protecting America’s own citizens. What is unjust is that the rule of law followed by those who went through the process of being here legally means nothing to those who demand “comprehensive immigration reform” and call those of us who support the sovereignty of this nation racists.
There is no rational or intellectually sound comparison to made between the struggles of black American citizens who were denied basic rights due to Jim Crow and people who are in this country illegally.
The website includes a petition urging President Barack Obama to take action.
“Arizona’s new law is an assault on the US Constitution and an affront to the civil rights that were earned by generations who came before us,” the petition reads. “When states disregard the Constitution, when they sanction mistreatment of communities, it is the imperative of the Executive Branch to take the lead in defending the U.S. Constitution.”
Again, how is the Arizona law an assault on civil rights? What is being denied? Whose liberties are being trampled upon? The only ones extricating liberties from the citizenry are the Obamacrats in charge. (Let me count the ways).
What is imperative is that the President of the United States do what the Constitution charges him to do – preserve, protect and defend this nation.
The only assault on the Constitution is coming from the left.
Update: May 29, 2010 – 9:40 AM
Proof, from the great Proof Positive blog, correctly points out that the proper way to express “We are Arizonians” in German would be:
Wir sind Arizonians.
Indeed, as Proof indicated, I had the choice of choosing the largely unfamiliar “Wir sind Arizonians” or a play on the iconic (and grammatically challenged) JFK line, “Ich bin ein Arizonian.”
I opted for the latter.
Now get to Arizona!
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 27, 2010
Brian, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, posted a video clip from Barack Obama’s press conference earlier today in which the President did his best to convince the American people that his every waking moment is consumed with the Gulf oil spill. Reminiscent of the scene in The Caine Mutiny where Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart) sits at the head of the table in the officer’s mess and tries to convince his shipmates that he isn’t a bad guy – that even his dog likes him – President Obama recounted the heart-wrenching, emotion-drenched interaction he had with his daughter this morning while he was shaving.
It was as relevant as it was tender – as plastic as it was nauseating, in a “listen-to-the-violins” sort of way – and it shed a revealing light on the Commander-In-Chief, the man of the people, the One.
Said the President:
And so my job right now is just to make sure that everyone in the Gulf understands this is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about: the spill. And it’s not just me, by the way. When I woke up this morning and I’m shaving, and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peaks in her head and she says, ‘Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?’”
If, after reading those words, you didn’t weep instantly, you have no soul.
And while Obama’s performance this afternoon conjured up a scene in a fifty-six year old movie for me, in Brian’s mind, it conjured up the words of another disastrous President bringing up the concerns of his daughter on the national stage.
Thirty years ago, it was Jimmy Carter, who said:
I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day before I came here, and I asked her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weapons.
If, after reading those words, you didn’t retroactively weep instantly, you have no soul.
By contrast, my own kids would probably be thought of as cold-blooded, heartless wads of selfish flesh since they’d be more likely to ask, “Did the President bankrupt the country yet, Daddy?”
“Will there be any money left in my paycheck for me to take home when I grow up and start working, Daddy?”
“What else is Obama going to take over, Papa?”
It’s interesting how Malia Obama asked her Dad if he plugged the hole.
“Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?”
To those paying attention, the answer, obviously, is “no.”
I heard both Janet Napolitano and Mrs. Obama speaking as recently as today.
(Feel free to insert your own punch line here).
Incidentally, it was gracious of the President of the United States to take the time to thank the literally thousands of people who have been working on trying to end the Gulf oil spill – everyone from first responders to engineers, from scientists to consultants – risking their lives, investing extraordinary amounts of time and energy, expending blood, sweat and tears to try and plug up the hole.
Oh wait …
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 27, 2010
The moral deficiency that is pacifism does not apply to all leftists.
Pacifists may live on the left, but not all leftists are pacifists.
It’s not that the left has an aversion to fighting. Indeed, they’ll get down and dirty with almost as much frequency as anyone. However, what makes most liberty-loving, Constitution-revering, rugged individualists snicker at the thought of a leftist standing up for, and defending, what they believe in is the fact that their “enemies” list reads somewhat differently than that of conservatives.
Conservatives see Islamo-fascists as the enemy.
Liberals see global warming as the enemy.
Conservatives fight terrorism.
Liberals fight greenhouse gases.
Conservatives speak out against dictators, tyrannies and totalitarians.
Liberals speak out against Arizona lawmakers, Tea Party protestors and conservatives.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talks about keeping the government’s boot on the neck of BP until the Gulf oil spill is stopped, but Obamacrats never dare use such language when it comes to the likes of Iran or North Korea. That’s because conservatives fight despotic thugs. Liberals fight American corporations and “excessive” profits.
And where exactly has this Obamacratic “enemies” list left the United States of America? What good has come from the post-partisan, post-racial, post-common-sense messiah-in-chief – the one who was going to pummel through Bush-era barriers and get the entire world cuddling up together by virtue of his mere existence?
How about an all-time-high number of terror attacks against the United States? How about a Messianic Age that has seen more acts of evil perpetrated against America by terrorist punks than at any time in her history?
Richard Esposito and Pierre Thomas of ABC News write:
The pace and number of attempted terror attacks against the U.S. over the past nine months has surpassed the number of attempts during any previous one-year period, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security report issued on Friday, May 21.
The report notes chillingly that while US officials “lack insights” they believe that “operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning.”
The DHS “Intelligence Note,” a short, non-classified report, makes concrete the concerns of a number of homeland security experts who have discussed with ABC News the pace and nature of the individual attempts. The report notes that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Pakistani Taliban have “expanded their focus” to include the United States.
Not that this administration is actually using the word “terror.”
Not that high-ranking Obamacrats – like Attorney General Eric Holder, for instance – will admit that Islamic fundamentalism has anything to do with these attacks.
Not that former Presidents – like William Jefferson Clinton, for instance – while addressing students at an Ivy League school actually bothered referring to the Times Square bomber as evil. (Instead, Clinton referred to the terrorist a “poor, tragic man.”)
Not that it is any secret that our Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, is better qualified to fold sweaters at the Big K … maybe.
Not that America’s enemies don’t pay close attention to all of this.
That sound you hear is the chant from caves and terror cells alike, from every corner of the world, of “Four more years! Four more years!”
See? Obama is a unifier.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 26, 2010
You’ve got to love Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.
Well, not really … but his faculty to actually believe the things he says while continuing to live in exile from the land of rational thought borders on impressive. It’s one thing to keep drawing talking points and flaccid strategies from the ancient Democrat playbook. It’s quite another to sound as if your points of argument were hijacked from an underground leftist blog created in mommy’s basement … or from Chris Matthews’ diaries.
It is a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome on steroids … and the syringe is still sticking out of Senator Dodd’s tush.
The Senator was a guest on Don Imus’ radio program yesterday. According the Nutmeg State nut, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill can be blamed only on one thing: George W. Bush.
From Real Clear Politics:
When asked by Don Imus on his morning program if the Obama was to blame for lack of response to the oil spill, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) blamed the Bush administration. “Well, you know, they come into office a year ago with all of this. And so, after the last eight years,” he said.
At that point, Imus interrupted and asked if he has “lost” his mind for blaming Bush. “The President has been in office for a year and a half and they’ve been dragging their feet and even people like James Carville said that his behavior ‘has been at the very best lackadaisical and naive’ and you’re still going to try to blame Bush?” he said.
“To lay this at Obama’s doorstep, in light of years and years of regulatory permissiveness when it comes to these kinds of operations occurring — it didn’t occur in the last year and a half,” he said. “I mean, you know that as well as I do. You can’t lay this all at Obama’s door anymore than I can say,” Dodd responded.
That must mean that Senator Dodd places the blame for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks squarely on the shoulders of President Bill Clinton, right?
It stands to reason.
George W. Bush was in office a little less than eight months when America was attacked. Barack Obama has been in office sixteen months, and yet, Senator Dud somehow blames Obama’s predecessor on something that occured almost a year-and-a-half after Bush went home.
Using the Senator’s method, President Clinton practically commandeered the planes into the twin towers himself.
As far as the Gulf oil spill … thirty-nine days and counting …
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 26, 2010
From the “Do The Math” file …
The President means business.
The border that separates the United States and Mexico – the one that doesn’t help define our nation, according to Barack Obama – is just about 2,000 miles long. Yesterday, it was announced that the President will send 1,200 National Guard troops to the nation’s southern border to help secure America. That’s comes to one additional soldier for every 1 2/3 miles.
Who needs a wall now?
(That sound you hear is a whole lot of Mexicans shaking in their shoes, wondering what on Earth they’re going to do now).
But open-border advocates, anti-sovereignty types and assorted leftists need not fear. They may, indeed, have frightening images of armed-to-the-teeth Guardsmen patrolling America’s border dancing through their minds, but that isn’t exactly what Bam has in mind. A closer look at what the President is doing reveals that this isn’t about true defense of the border.
According to the Associated Press:
The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts blocking drug trafficking. The troops will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, the administration official said.
In other words, an absolute waste.
“But wait, Andy!” you cry.
“Aren’t you for sending the National Guard to the border?”
“Aren’t you just reflexively taking the anti-Obama position on this because you despise him and want him to fail and hate the fact that he is so handsome and articulate?”
“Aren’t you just a puppy-kicking, balloon-popping, joyless, intolerant racist?”
Let’s be clear … If this was really about defending the United States and securing the southern border, I’d be the first one to stand up an applaud the move.
But that’s not what this is about.
When you hear words like “supplement” and “analysis” and “support” being used in the context of an action meant to secure this nation, it cannot be taken seriously. Obama might as well order the Guard to leave chips, dip and Gatorade in the desert so the illegals have something to snack on as they make their way to one of our “sanctuary cities.”
Senator Jon Kyle of Arizona says these are “desk jobs.”
This is not a serious attempt to secure the US-Mexico border. This is why liberals (and other children) cannot be trusted with national security.
This is about the President being able to say he did something. This is about heading Republicans off at the pass who wanted to force a vote on deploying troops to the border. This is about trying to tenderize the opposition with a talking point while Obamacrats prepare to take the State of Arizona into the courtroom over their new illegal alien law … or if not that (because even they will have to realize can’t win), then it’s about paving the way for some sort of amnesty bill.
Blah, blah, blah …
My dear friends, this is Barack Obama.
That means it is never about the United States of America.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 24, 2010
So, let’s see … the fantasy of a well-know New York Times columnist is that America, for just one day, should become like China. Whether that includes the denial of even the most basic human rights, the cultivation of organ farms, or the elimination of 60 million humans is unclear. Maybe the columnist, Thomas Friedman, only meant the really cool parts of China.
And it’s funny how an Obama dictatorship, as suggested by Woody Allen, appeals to him as much as it does, when so many like him are quick to pull out their Nazi cards in criticizing the supposed overreach of conservatives into our everyday lives. Whether that means that only the more appealing and family-friendly characteristics of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao would be harnessed by the Messiah is unknown at this time, but if nothing else, such thinking will continue to pass as intellectual and deeply nuanced.
And it’s funny how libs are quick to cheapen language by comparing the American “heath care crisis” to the Holocaust, for example. Or call those who defend the traditional definition of marriage as homophobes. Or come up with a veritable rainbow of “rape” to help regretful young women deal with indiscretions the morning after. Or call those who oppose Barack Obama racist.
In fact, to oppose Barack Obama doesn’t just mean one is a bigot anymore.
According to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Obama critics are almost at the level of “sedition.”
From MyFox Boston:
Gov. Deval Patrick says national Republicans are bordering on “sedition” as they oppose his good friend and fellow Democrat, President Barack Obama. Patrick decried criticism of his own governing efforts on Monday during a forum for students at Suffolk University’s Rappaport Center.
But he says that “seems like child’s play compared to what’s going on in Washington.” He said partisanship in the capital “is almost at the level of sedition,” or bordering on insurrection.
Mocking Republicans, he says, “If the president says ‘up,’ we will say ‘down.'”
Later, the governor sloughed off his own sedition comment, calling it a “rhetorical flourish.”
It’s funny how often Democrats have to come back and retract, redefine, restate or apologize for the things they say. Fortunately for them, all they have to do is say they were speaking off the cuff, or trying to make a complex point, or illustrating something that is far too multifaceted and easy to misunderstand, and all is once again well.
Just curious … Are conservatives capable of “rhetorical flourishes?” Rand Paul, anyone?
And incidentally, if the President actually said, did or stood for something that is consistent with our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, or actually behaved like he knew what was in the Constitution of the United States, he’d have more supporters from the right … and, for that matter, the center.
If the President says, “up,” we say, “you mean our taxes and debt?”
Does Governor Duval actually know what the word ‘sedition” means? Has he any concept of how serious a term that is?
Sedition, by definition, encourages the overthrow, or insurrection, of a lawful authority, like a government. It isn’t as serious as treason – which is the actual attempt to destabilize and/or overthrow the government – but it is the act of encouraging such an undertaking.
No one in the Tea Party movement, no prominent conservative, nor any Republican elected official – repeat no one – has ever suggested or hinted that Barack Obama’s administration should be removed from power in any way other than the method outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
As Hillary Clinton famously screeched: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. And we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
In a statement released a few hours after his comments were posted on Boston.com and other websites, the chairwoman of the state Republican Party criticized Patrick.
“Apparently our First Amendment rights are only guaranteed if we agree with the tax-and-spend policies of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama,” Jennifer Nassour, chairwoman of the state GOP, said.
She added, “the governor should focus on the critical issues at hand, like (lowering) property taxes and controlling rampant spending, instead of defending his buddy President Obama.”
It sure would be nice if one – just one – Democrat stopped making it his or her life’s mission to stand up and defend this President and do a little defending of the United States of America.
They would, of course, need Felipe Calderon’s permission first.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 24, 2010
Liberals have no interest in what Americans really care about. Rather, they are interested in telling Americans what they should – nay, will – care about. The needs of their constituencies are irrelevant to them, because, for the most part, they don’t believe the people they are charged to represent really know what they need. It’s because buried deep within the soul of the modern-day American liberal, stuck to their DNA like Nutella to a butter knife, is that inherent tendency toward totalitarianism. Whether it’s someone in the thick of the liberal stew like New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who says he actually fantasizes about what it would be like in America if we were like China for just one day, to entertainment icon Woody Allen, who says that a few years of an Obama dictatorship would be good for this country, they are liberals, and they know best.
Just ask one.
Ever since Arizona passed its illegal immigration law, a majority of Americans have been in favor of it. In fact, in some polls, support for the law has actually increased. Meanwhile, Obamacrats continue to speak out against it – including those who haven’t yet read it – demonstrating how out-of-touch with the country they really are.
The same can be said for Obamacare.
According to a new Rasmussen poll, a convincing six in ten Americans believe that Obamacare should be flat out repealed.
That’s right … repealed.
That’s the highest level ever.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.
Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.
Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.
The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.
While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.
Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. Fifty-five percent (55%) say it will be bad for the nation. Only three percent (3%) think it will have no impact.
This can be filed under “Why Elections Matter.”
We are a little over five months away from, arguably, the most critical non-Presidential election in America’s history. Key components of ObamaCare really don’t start to kick in until 2014. For a repeal to actually happen, Republicans must come away winners in November and then take back the White House from the jaws of destruction in 2012.
One step at a time.
But it isn’t that one-dimensional.
Republicans cannot just run on repealing ObamaCare. They must put together sensible reforms as part of a repeal package.
That’s how a roadmap to repeal could work … “on paper.”
Unfortunately, the fear is that once the “benefits” start flowing, only the most steadfast conservatives will not cave.
Supreme Court, anyone?
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 23, 2010
I think a great big congratulations is in order for Charles Djou, don’t you?
If you are not familiar with the name just yet, you probably will be in short order. He has just won the special election for Hawaii’s First Congressional Seat – Barack Obama’s childhood district.
And why, you may ask, is that a big deal? Why is this relevant?
Because Djou is a Republican … and he’s the first Republican to hold that seat since Pat Saiki left office twenty years ago.
From Hawaii News Now:
The Honolulu City Councilmember grabbed 39% of the vote. State Senate president Colleen Hanabusa came in second with 30% of the vote. Former US Representative Ed Case came in third, gathering 27% the vote.
“This is a momentous day. We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the ex-governors. We have sent a message to the national Democrats. We have sent a message to the machine. We have told them, that we will not stand idly by as our great nation is burdened by too much taxes and too much wasteful spending” said Representative-elect Djou in front of hundreds of supporters at Republican headquarters in Honolulu.
Lefties, of course, will be quick to remind you that Democrat support is not waning. Rather – to quote Ian Faith from the film Spinal Tap – it is simply becoming “more selective.”
And for those negative nellies out there, don’t be discouraged by those who say that come November, Djou doesn’t stand a chance against whatever Democrat comes along in the general election. Don’t be put off by the entire “Democrat in-fighting” rhetoric.
Djou will be the incumbent, will attract independents (especially many who went for Ed Case), and will have raised a lot of money by then.
He does stand a chance in November.
This isn’t just a symbolic win.
Rather, it may very well prove to be a prophetic one.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 23, 2010
The coffee is particularly strong this morning. It’s quiet in the house. It’s just me, the computer, and some catch-up work.
And I felt like a little Frankie this morning.
This version is a bit different than the recorded Eddie Freeman arrangement, released in 1966 – most notably, the absence of the background singers.
Regardless, it’s no less zesty.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 23, 2010
In the event you were not aware of this, here’s a little Sunday morning tidbit to gnaw on: As if a standing ovation wasn’t enough … Our Vice President, along with the Speaker of the House, wore little rubber bracelets as a show of solidarity with Mexican President Felipe Calderon when he came to Washington to blast Arizona’s new illegal alien law last week.
Isn’t that delicious?
Two of the three most powerful people in the United States (at least on paper) darned anti-Arizona apparel that openly sided with a foreign head of state against citizens of their own country.
Yes, Vice President Bumble-Mouth and House Speaker Nitwit sent the message that they couldn’t care less about those who respect the rule of law in this country, but will wear symbolic bracelets (not unlike pre-pubescent girls) in honor of those who don’t.
With every poll continuing to show that the vast majority of Americans favor the Arizona law – and with high-profile critics of the law, including the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security, admitting they still haven’t read the thing – the dazzling arrogance of the likes of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi is breathtaking. Not only do they throw steaming excrement on American citizens by having the audacity to wear these insulting rubber bracelets, they do so in the chambers of the House of Representatives.
Why didn’t they just blow their noses in an American flag or declare California and Arizona “occupied territory” from the House floor?
What exactly are standing up for here? With whom or what exactly are they supposedly showing solidarity?
Those who endorse breaking American laws?
Those who crap on American sovereignty?
Those who have had more harsh words about law-abiding conservative Americans than law-breaking illegal aliens?
A foreign President who stood on American soil and actually had the tamales to lambaste an American law while our President stood close by, doing his best impression of a lawn ornament?
On second thought … very believable.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 21, 2010
Thanks to Jay for passing this along …
And just think … this person most likely has a voter registration card.
This is probably unrelated to the fact that twelve people have been reported as “missing” in the vicinity of the Safeway on Market Street in San Francisco over the last several weeks … where, recently, prices in the meat in department have been simply fabulous.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 21, 2010
And so it was that Democrats stood up and vivaciously applauded the Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, for criticizing Arizona’s immigration law during his address to Congress yesterday. The donkeys showered him with love and appreciation for having the audacity (and courage, they would say) to attack the law of a sovereign state. There wasn’t a lefty in the house who wasn’t moved. There wasn’t a lib who didn’t secretly wish they could give Calderon a nice oil-based foot rub, or plant a big wet kiss right on his mug, after he spoke his piece. All of them – from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Vice President Joe Biden – were there, softly sighing and casting loving glances in Calderon’s direction as he went on about racial profiling and other falsehoods.
It was memorable – in that “I had a root canal but the anesthesia didn’t take” sort of way.
That a foreign head of state – a guest of this country – should step foot on our soil and harshly criticize our immigration policy in front of the nation’s legislative body is bad enough. That Democrats should give him a standing ovation after he dumped on the American people for upholding laws that pale in comparison to the stringent immigration laws of Mexico is disgraceful.
The name of the game is hypocrisy.
It’s a word that gets a real workout these days, because too many people – especially libs – confuse inconsistency with hypocrisy.
In this case, however, there can be no mistake that Calderon is dealing text-book, dye-in-the-wool hypocrisy.
In speaking with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Situation Room about the Arizona law, Calderon said:
In Arizona, there is some racial profiling criteria in order to enforce the law that is against any sense of human rights. And, of course, it’s provoking very disappointing opinion in Mexico and around the world, even here in America. To introduce these kinds of elements, especially racial profiling aspects that are attempting against what we consider human rights, it’s a principle of discrimination which is against the values of this great nation.
He is patently incorrect, of course. The law specifically prohibits racial profiling.
But when asked by Blitzer if Mexican police actually went around asking to see the papers of people they suspect of being in Mexico illegally, Calderon took a page from the “It’s Okay For Me, But Not For You” playbook (popularized by Al Gore), and said, “Of course.”
And when asked if those who enter Mexico by its southern borders – Nicaraguans and Guatemalans, for example – can get a job in Mexico once they’re in the country, Calderon responded, “No. If somebody do that without permission, we send back them.” (literal transcription, folks).
But the real questions here are: How exactly do Mexican authorities determine whose papers will be checked? What could lead a Mexican police officer to “suspect” someone of being in that country illegally?
Considering that being Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, wouldn’t it be a literal case of “racial profiling” for Mexican police to, say, stop a white man who looks like he could be from America (or anywhere) since he does meet the “profile” of a native Mexican? After all, most Mexicans are not Caucasian. Thus, isn’t it reasonable for Mexican authorities – who have the right to enforce their own nation’s immigration policies – to use race (among other criteria) to weed out illegals in their country?
Here in America – where the citizenry is comprised of a veritable epidermal rainbow – the new Arizona immigration clearly states that there will be no racial profiling.
There are no such provisions in the Mexican immigration statutes.
The reality is: the overwhelming vast majority of illegals in this country come from Mexico, our neighbor to the south.
That’s not a “racial” statement. That’s a statement of fact.
Calderon, however, is correct on one point: America does discriminate … between legal and illegal, that is.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 20, 2010
What would have been a real stride toward solidifying the “bonds” with Mexico that help to define our nation – as President Barack Obama said yesterday – was if the United States, in honor of our neighbors to the south, publicly announced a brand-spanking-new immigration policy identical to that of Mexico.
Just think of how historic that would have been.
With Mexican President Felipe Calderon standing by his side, imagine how thick the “bonds” that help define our nation – as President Barack Obama said yesterday – would have become if, as a true gesture of friendship and admiration, Barack Obama announced that the United States had decided to enact, word for word, the very immigration policy currently on the books in Mexico.
It would have been a moment for the ages.
Obama could have announced that simply to be an illegal alien in the United States would be a felony … just like it is in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that people would be admitted into the United States “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress” … just like they are in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that immigrants will be “useful elements for the country” and that they must have the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents … just like it is in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that foreigners can, and will, be removed if their presence disturbs “the equilibrium of the national demographics” … just like they are in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that those who are deported from the United States and re-enter the country illegally can be put in prison for up to ten years … just like in Mexico.
He could have done that.
Talk about missing a golden opportunity …
Instead, the White House opted to throw an over-the-top, glitz-and-glam state dinner last evening for the leader of the nation who supplies America with the vast majority of its illegal aliens – a party rife with celebrities, fashionistas and leftocrat elites. This is the same White House that has ridiculed corporations for paying CEOs outlandish sums of money, told us that we just can’t eat everything we want, and said that a recession was no time for profits.
Is there anyone who doesn’t believe that if crude oil were washing up on Louisiana’s shore while a Republican occupied the White House – and, say, a glamorous party honoring Israel were being thrown – a date would have been set already for the impeachment hearings?
Posted in Foreign Policy, illegal immigration | Tagged: Barack Obama, Felip calderon, Felipe Calderon, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, immigration policy, Mexico, Miexo, state dinner | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 20, 2010
A phrase you may hear being used more and more as the illegal immigration debate lumbers forward is: “Rule of Law City.”
Let’s hope so. It’s as catchy as it is accurate.
It is the antitoxin – the neutralizer – to the supreme joke and embarrassment that is the modern “sanctuary city,” most recently coined by Mayor Allan Mansoor of Costa Mesa, California, and validated by the city council there on Tuesday.
From the Orange County Register:
The City Council made it clear Tuesday night that people who are in the country illegally are not welcome in their city.
Council members voted to pass a resolution declaring Costa Mesa a “Rule of Law City” at the behest of Mayor Allan Mansoor, who has long been known as a vocal opponent of illegal immigration.
“I have a lot of concerns with cities calling themselves sanctuary cities,” Mansoor said before the vote. “It’s important we state that we do not support illegal immigration.”
Mansoor’s proposal was met with comments from five public speakers, all of whom criticized it. Some said the declaration would paint the city in a bad light and polarize the community. Others called the resolution a political move by Mansoor in his bid for the state Assembly.
The council voted 4-0 in favor of the declaration. Council member Katrina Foley was absent.
As in Arizona, the key here is that Costa Mesa is taking the step of enforcing laws that already exist at the national level but are all but being ignored.
To that end, being a “Rule of Law City” will also have an important “bonus consequence.”
It will have the effect of triggering a wave of self-deportations, as we are starting to see happen in Arizona. Indeed, the perception of the law among illegals will prove a powerful motivator – not to all, but to many. And even though there is absolutely nothing in this law, or the one in Arizona, about racial profiling, it won’t matter. The view among illegal aliens that “cops are coming after me” will be a valuable tool in getting many illegals to leave.
It’s called deterrence. It’s what keeps even the most law-abiding among us from engaging in bad behavior.
Along with common sense, history is also on the side of the “bonus consequence” argument.
A 2009 report put out by the Center of Immigration Studies says that the illegal alien population in Arizona dropped by nearly 200,000 in two years due, in large part, to increased efforts by the state to deal with the problem of illegals.
Since, from a Democrat perspective, this entire debate is really about appeasing minority voting blocks – even though this is not a minority issue – how about actually requiring people to prove their American citizenship before being allowed to vote?
How about enforcing that law?
Is there anything more basic – and obvious – than making sure that those who vote in American elections are actually Americans?
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 20, 2010
Not that he will care, of course.
He will write it off as some right-wing connivance meant to derail his attempts to finally make America a more perfect union. He’ll dismiss it all as being the result of angry, manipulative AM radio talk show hosts who dispatch daily marching orders on how to react to the otherwise benevolent and admirable metrosexual from the Windy City. He’ll say he doesn’t care about the polls, that he is there to do the work of the American people, blah, blah, blah.
Still, the numbers aren’t good … and they haven’t been for a long time.
There was no boost when ObamaCare was passed, like they thought there would be.
There has been no boost as the administration continues to blast the new Arizona immigration law … and there won’t be.
The fact is: the Messiah ain’t doing too well.
According to Rasmussen, the Presidential Approval Index has dropped back to -19 – the lowest it’s been since March 20th. (Barack Obama hasn’t had a positive Presidential Approval rating since June 29, 2009).
From Rasmussen, via Weasel Zippers:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.
In other poll news: Rasmussen finds that 55% of all Americans are in favor of an Arizona type immigration law being passed in their own states, while only 33% are opposed.
A whopping seven in ten Americans believe a police officer should be required to verify the legal status of anyone stopped for any sort of violation if that person is suspected of being in the United States illegally.
The 12% of Americans who remain unsure about whether or not they’d like to see an Arizona-type law enacted in their own states would almost certainly flip to the “yes” column – in this humble blogger’s opinion – if they were aware that the law is not about racial profiling.
Earlier reports suggested that the Arizona law would allow police to stop anyone they suspected of being an illegal immigrant. The law as it stands, however, applies only to situations where someone has been lawfully stopped for some other violation.
Of course, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and probably a whole host of Obamacrats, haven’t read the law yet …
And China and Mexico hate the law …
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 19, 2010
I’m so delighted that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has finally infused some badly-needed clarity into the immigration debate. I knew it was only a matter of time before the most consequential and sumptuous man ever to occupy the Oval Office wrapped his mighty hands around the tumor of confusion that is the immigration discussion and ripped it out of the body politic.
The healing may now officially begin.
And just like that, over two centuries of timeworn thinking – born of repression, exclusion, alienation and greed – has finally been cast onto the trash heap of time. The “fences” built by that overrated gang of dead, slave-owning white guys who obsessed over God, guns and liberty all those years ago are no longer a constraint in these newly transformed United States – except, of course, in the terrorist state of Arizona.
Taking a page from his “Citizen of The World” handbook, Barack Obama today said that the United States of America is not defined by its borders.
Speaking to Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said:
Mr. President, your visit speaks to a truth of our time in North America and the world. In the 21st Century, we are defined, not by our borders, but by our bonds. So, I say to you and the Mexican people, “Let us stand together. Let us face the future together. Let us work together.”
I am regularly amazed – although I shouldn’t be – when liberals speak. So often when they open their mouths, they make sounds approximating coherent language but say absolutely nothing – and yet, their words are regularly heralded as sheer brilliance, particularly in the case of Barack Obama.
Take a moment and re-read what President Obama said.
There is not a proton’s worth of meaning or substance in a single word of it. It isn’t even banal enough to grab the attention of fortune cookie makers and bumper sticker companies.
He said nothing.
How exactly are we defined by our “bonds?” What on earth is that supposed to mean in the real world? How does what we may have in common with another nation define us?
Mr. President, the United States of America is defined by her values. We are defined, as talk show host Dennis Prager commonly says, by the American Trinity: “In God We Trust,” “E Pluribus Unum” and “Liberty.” It is what makes this country the greatest the world has ever known. It is what makes America a beacon to the entire world. It is what sets us apart from other free nations.
“Bonds” do not define this country … whatever that means.
That may, indeed, be the most birdbrained utterance ever to come out of Barack Obama’s mouth – and believe me, consdiering the body of his work, I don’t make such a statement lightly.
And what the hell does “let us face the future together” mean? (Did the White House hand out complimentary vomit sacks to those in attendance today?) Why not throw in an “All for one and one for all” while you’re there? Or a “We’ve got to pull together” for good measure?
Is this man paid by the cliche?
My God, is there a man alive who can spew more emptiness and meaninglessness that Barack Obama?
Incidentally, the crack staff here at Roman Around is trying to determine whether or not Obama bowed to Calderon.
Also, it cannot be confirmed whether or not Calderon presented Obama with the Cheech and Chong collectors DVD box set.
And just so you know … President Obama took two questions today – one from a reporter from Univision, and other from a Mexican newspaper.
That’s all, folks.
I’m surprised he didn’t mention anything about Arlen Specter getting his ass kicked last night.
Posted in Foreign Policy, illegal immigration | Tagged: allegal immigration, Barack Obama, defined by bonds, Felipe Calderon, illegal aliens, Mexican President, not defined by borders | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 18, 2010
Is it possible to disagree with a liberal and not be branded a Nazi? Or a fascist? Or be compared to a murderous dictator? Or be called a racist? Or labeled a homophobe?
In a liberal’s world, how does a non-bigoted, non-hateful, non-totalitarian conservative dissenter sound or look? Is there even such a thing? How does one who believes in a strong national defense, limited government and the rule of law go about his or her job without being compared to an oppressive Communist regime by a high-ranking Obamacrat?
It is the last fortress for lefties who have no substance. It is the reflex of libs who cannot hold their own in the arena of ideas. It is the primal instinct of Obamacrats who can only respond to coherence and reason by launching personal attacks and making farcical comparisons to oppressive governments in the hope of tugging on people’s emotions.
It is how Dems play the game.
Assistant Secretary of State, Michael Posner is getting some much deserved heat from Arizona’s two Senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl. They are asking – nay, demanding – that Posner apologize for comparing Arizona’s new illegal alien law to the human rights record of Communist China.
From Yahoo News:
A top US diplomat who reportedly compared a tough new immigration law in Arizona to China’s rights record must retract his “offensive” remark and apologize, the state’s two US senators demanded Tuesday.
Republican Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain accused Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner of implying that the Arizona measure “is morally equivalent to China’s persistent pattern of abuse and repression of its people.”
The letter from McCain and Kyl, obtained by AFP, cited a media report that Posner had called Arizona’s controversial immigration measure part of “a troubling trend in our society” during recent US-China human rights talks.
“As assistant secretary of state in charge of the bureau of democracy and human rights, your remarks are particularly offensive. We demand you retract your statement and issue an apology,” the lawmakers wrote.
Kyl and McCain pointed to the US State Department’s annual human rights report, which sharply criticized what it described as China’s rampant rights abuses and warned Beijing’s record was worsening.
“To compare in any way the lawful and democratic act of the government of the state of Arizona with the arbitrary abuses of the unelected Chinese Communist Party is inappropriate and offensive,” they wrote.
“There is no place for moral equivalency and human rights policy. The United States is the world’s leader in defending the rights of all people. Someone in your position should be proud to proclaim that,” they said.
Perhaps Posner can call an emergency meeting with officials from Libya and Angola – two well-known human rights violating nations recently admitted to the new United Nations Human Rights Council – to discuss the shamefulness and contemptibility of the new Arizona immigration law, and ask for some much-needed advice.
In effect, Posner issued what amounted to an apology to Communist China because of Arizona’s decision to actually uphold the law of the land. And by his own admission, he brought up the new Arizona law “early and often” to demonstrate to the ChiComs (like a good, capitulating little invertibrate) that we, too, have our issues of discrimination to deal with, and that we must do better – because asking people to prove their legality in this country is exactly like harvesting organs, throwing dissenters in modern-day gulags and executing innocents at will. Yes, Posner sat face-to-face with the Red Chinese – one of the most forbidding and suppressive regimes on planet earth – and denounced the evil that is Arizona’s illegal alien law.
But that’s okay.
One man’s freedom is another man’s oppression, right?
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 18, 2010
Someone ought to explain to both the enviro-fascists and global warming hysterians that a “greener” world will necessitate warmer temperatures. Generally speaking, plants, grass and trees have a predilection to “green up” when the mercury rises.
That’s sort of the whole concept behind spring and summer. (Note that crops – such as food – have a penchant for growing better in the summer time).
Oddly enough, corn, wheat, tomatoes and soy beans have high failure rates as winter crops. (The Earth has a tendency to be less kind to crops when the ground is cold).
It’s nuts, I know.
Perhaps the enviro-wackjobs might want to modify their battle cry from “Go Green!” to something more befitting, like “Go Brown!” or “Go Gray!”
And while there are many who do, in fact, believe the earth is warming to some extent, an ever-increasing number of folks do not think human activity is the cause of it – and that includes nearly seven in ten television meteorologists across the United States.
How’s that for an “ouch”?
Johnny Simpson at Digital Journal writes:
A recent CBS News report revealed a startling statistic: While more than half of all TV meteorologists believe global warming is occurring, less than a third believe it is caused by human activity.
And why exactly is that so “startling”?
I suppose for the same reason it continues to shock the mainstream media to learn that the majority of Americans support the new Arizona immigration law.
Libs live in a bubble.
Or maybe they simply never knew there were this many barbarians (i.e., conservatives, clear thinkers, patrons of common sense, etc.) out there.
From CBS News via Breitbart TV comes some surprising news: a joint George Mason University and University of Texas survey of TV meteorologists in America reveals that while more than half (54 percent) believe global warming is happening, less than a third (31 percent) believe it is caused by human activity, specifically man-made carbon emissions as determined by the IPCC and others.
TV weatherman Dan Satterfield, who was interviewed by CBS News for this report, is in the minority of TV weathermen and women who believe global warming is caused by human actions. “It used to be a mountain of evidence, and now it is a mountain range of evidence,” Mr. Satterfield told CBS News. “You put greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the planet’s going to warm up. That’s a said and done fact.”
It’s also a fact that if one guzzles two gallons of bleach, he or she will most likely die. Or that if one naps on a subway track, he or she has an excellent chance of being killed by a train. Just because swallowing bleach and catnapping on train tracks can kill doesn’t mean it is a societal problem. The amount of “greenhouse gas” (i.e., carbon dioxide) being put into the atmosphere by humans is so infinitesimal as to be statistically irrelevant. There is simply no iron-clad proof of any kind – not a scintilla of evidence – that human beings are not only causing temperatures to rise but that in doing so, they are placing the planet in peril.
However, San Diego TV weathercaster and Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman begged to differ with Mr. Satterfield’s conclusions. “Everything they (GW scientists) do is based on carbon dioxide being a pollutant, a greenhouse gas. So if that is wrong, and I know it is, all of the others (conclusions) fall by the wayside.” Former NASA climate scientist Roy Spencer agreed with Mr. Coleman. “It’s my view that most global warming has been natural,” Mr. Spencer told CBS News. “Nature is perfectly capable of producing its own global warming and cooling.”
It in inconceivable to the purveyors of common sense that human beings could have such a catastrophic effect on the climate as to actually affect weather patterns. How exactly? If humanity wanted to – if we made it our mission to purposely warm the world in an attempt to thwart a coming Ice Age – we wouldn’t be able to make a dent. We could run every automobile until they were blue in the fenders – fly every airplane, keep every smokestack from every factory pumping out endless plumes of smoke – and the winters would still come, the rains would still fall and sun would still set in the West.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 18, 2010
It’s a trend among the very best lip-flappers in Obama Country.
But it isn’t surprising.
If the nation’s top law enforcement official – Attorney General Eric Holder – isn’t going to bother to take the time to read the contents of the new Arizona Illegal Alien law before opening his gob to publicly criticize it, why should we expect any different from the second-most “in-over-your-head” member of the Obama team (after Obama himself)?
On April 26th, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, said that Arizona’s illegal immigration law was “misguided.” A day later, she said that the new law could “detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing serious crimes.” She said she had “deep concerns” about the law and thought it could wind up creating “undue” barriers between victims and police.
On May 2nd, Napolitano called the new law “a shame.” She went on to say that “this is the type of law I would veto when I was governor. It is bad for law enforcement. It takes law enforcement off the streets looking at the types of crimes they need to prioritize.” She added that the law “does and can invite racial profiling.”
But how would she know?
She hasn’t read the thing.
From Real Clear Politics:
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano admits she hasn’t read the Arizona immigration law, but passed judgment on it anyway. “That’s not the kind of law I would have signed,” she declared.
“I believe it’s a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in,” Napolitano said.
“When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation,” she claimed.
She was being questioned by Senator John McCain on Capitol Hill who asked, “Have you had a chance to review the new law that was passed by the State of Arizona?”
Napolitano replied, “I have not reviewed it in detail. I certainly know of it, Senator.”
It’s the same answer she could have given had she been asked, “Are you at all familiar with the Constitution?”
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 17, 2010
First of all, the H/T goes to the great Ace of Spades blog for bringing this to my attention.
Second, if I didn’t have four different projects in the works, a client list that is non-transferable, and a slew of obligations that preclude me from doing so, I would grab all of my stuff, throw it in a drawstring Hefty bag and make my way down to Alabama and find a place to live, just so I could vote for this guy.
I can guarantee the word “metrosexual” has never been applied to Dale Peterson, Republican candidate for Alabama Agriculture Commissioner.
As Drew M. at the AoS blog says: “Best Political Ad Ever.”
Yes, he used the word “illegal.”
Yes, he brandished a rifle in the ad.
Yes, he even scared the living daylights out of the trees.
The moment Mr. Peterson slung his firearm over his right shoulder, that was it for me. I was on the phone to U-Haul.
Luckily, the wife reeled me back in before I gave my two week notice.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 17, 2010
There is something to be said for American leftists who do not attempt to disguise the fact that they are, in fact, hard core, moonstruck leftists. It’s somewhat refreshing – in a perverse sort of way – observing an angry moonbat from the dark side of the aisle allowing his or her totalitarian feathers to bristle in the breeze a little bit. In the spirit of “clarity over agreement” (the main credo of radio talk show host Dennis Prager), I almost feel the need to applaud those who comprise that most resplendent group of ungrateful, morally bereft leftist dullards – those who make no bones about their veneration for despotism and tyranny.
On those occasions when I am afforded the opportunity to listen to the bemoaning of some exceedingly wealthy, self-centered, elitist ingrate – one who has reaped the benefits of being a citizen of the freest nation on God’s green Earth – refusing to go through the trouble of having to fake a love of liberty, and instead openly admitting to having a man-crush on authoritarianism, I have to tip my hat.
Indeed, whenever a successful, spoiled-brat, whiny leftist – perhaps an athiest to boot – steps up and says that an oligarchy would be good for this country, I walk away a little impressed.
Because some people don’t realize (or care) how mournfully demented and dim-witted they sound – and that’s a quality almost worth admiring.
However, there’s an illuminating point to be made here.
Note how such courageous declarations usually don’t take place on American soil. Generally, these brave loonbuckets make sure their feet are planted on foreign ground before they spew their excremental pontifications, often speaking to small, out-of–the-way media outlets that will all but be ignored by the American mainstream media.
And they’re right.
If not for the conservative blogosphere, no one would ever hear these things.
Take the latest commentary from film director, Woody Allen – a man who has the distinction of being his own (unofficial) step-daughter’s husband.
It turns out that Woody is not only in love with President Barack Obama – in that “wow, he is totally awesome” Elena Kagan sort of way – but he thinks “a lot of good stuff” could come from an Obama dictatorship.
From Jim Hoft at the great Gateway Pundit blog:
Woody Allen wants Barack Obama to be dictator for for a few years so that he can completely socialize America. The article published today, May 15, 2010, did not make it into any English-language paper. The article quotes Allen as saying [first in Spanish, then in English from a trusted reader] –
“Estoy encantado con Obama, creo que es genial. El Partido Republicano debería quitarse de su camino y dejar de intentar herirle.”
“I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.”
And, the money quote:
“…sería bueno…si pudiera ser un dictador durante algunos años, porque podría hacer un montón de cosas buenas rápidamente.”
The translated quote:
“…it would be good…if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.”
Of course, this comes as a complete shock.
What is it with these leftist loons and their passion for socialist dictators?
… because according to that master-theorist and intellectualist, Woody Allen, a quick perusal of the history of dictatorships on planet Earth has sufficiently proven to him that an Obama-led dictatorship could actually reap a lot of “good stuff” for the American people.
Besides, according to Allen, Obama is “cool” – perhaps, the most important criterion of an effective leader to a leftist.
What could be better for America than a “cool dictator?”
Stalin, for instance, had that push-broom moustache and wore heavy wool. Very uncool.
Hitler’s cookie duster was painfully small, and his boots were loud. Besides, he wasn’t very good looking and couldn’t make shots from outside the arc. Squaresville.
And Mao? Sure, he may have been a philosophical superman, but he didn’t exactly have matinee-idol appeal and certainly wasn’t hip to the latest tunes.
A loser, really.
Barack Obama, however, is “cool” … and if you can’t take the word of a man who is married to a girl he met when she was ten (and he was forty-five), who can you trust?
Add to that the fact that Barack Obama is “brilliant,” and one can actually begin to understand why someone like Allen doesn’t bother believing in God. Why should he? An invisible Supreme Being living “up in the sky” hung up on millenia-old morals could never match up, in terms of style and substance, with Chicago’s favorite teleprompted metrosexual socialist.
Note how that seems to be the superlative of choice among libs in describing the President: “brilliant.”
Exactly why Barack Obama is supposed to be so “brilliant” has yet to be revealed, but he continues to trigger orgasmic adulation among those who still look to Neil Young and David Crosby for their political inspiration. Exactly what he has done to warrant such an assessment has yet to be realized, but he does enjoy waffles – just like us common folk do.
That the President’s head moves like a well-greased weather vane from side to side as he switches from one teleprompter to another could be part of it.
Anyway, it would only be for a few years, according to Allen.
It would be for our own good.
Can you say “swastika”?
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 15, 2010
What the hell is Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, talking about? Honestly, can someone with the facility to translate twaddle into English try and disentangle what the Mayor thinks he is trying to say? I’d love for someone to give it a shot.
It’s impossible to know what is behind the chasm that seems to have developed between the Mayor and his ability to think rationally, but it may be the inevitable result of a hyperactive leftist gene causing his moral bankruptcy to metastasize.
Either way, the device has yet to be built that can accurately measure the brilliance of his imitation of a half-wit.
On the heels of his city voting to Boycott Arizona because of that state’s tough new illegal alien enforcement law, Mayor Villaraigossa said that Los Angeles’ budget problem has nothing to do with illegal aliens. In fact, according to the Mayor, illegal immigration actually adds to the economic “might” of the entire State of California – and America.
Those are his words.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told CNSNews.com Thursday that illegal immigration has not contributed to his city’s budget problems, but, on the contrary, that illegal immigration adds to the “economic might” of California.
“In California, I think there’s a real sense that these immigrants provide a great deal to the economic might of the state,” said Villaraigosa.
Which begs the question: If illegal aliens are adding to the Sunshine State’s economic might – and America’s, for that matter – why are there any restrictions against them at all? Why all the talk about “comprehensive reform” and a “path to citizenship” when California’s problems can apparently be curtailed by simply affording the state the ability to bolster its economic might with an even greater infusion of illegals?
Can you imagine how much more out-of-control that state’s $18 billion budget deficit would be if the border was actually sealed? $25 billion? $50 billion?
One shudders at the thought of California free of illegal alien infiltration.
“Look, all of the studies show–and there have been many studies on this issue–that there are a lot of benefits to immigration, more benefits than there are detriments if you will,” Villaraigosa said.
How many times must it be said? There are a lot of benefits to legal immigration, Mr. Villaraigossa. Legal immigration.
“The fact of the matter is we have a broken immigration system. The fact of the matter is we need to secure our borders, while also providing a pathway for citizenship for the 12 million people, most of whom are working and contributing to the economic might of the nation,” the mayor said.
Seriously, what on God’s green Earth is he talking about?
Why is it necessary to “secure the border,” if America’s economic “might” is fuelled by illegal immigration?
People are leaving California as never before. The state is bankrupt. And yet, somehow, illegal aliens are contributing to the state’s “might”?
I’ll have what he’s smoking.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 15, 2010
The actual name of the magazine is “Parents.”
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 14, 2010
The United Nations is the Comedy Central of world affairs – cowardly and highly irrelevant. While no one at the UN is backing down from showing Muhammed in a bear costume, the planet’s most laughable and ineffectual organization continues its steady descent into the cesspool of moral depravity. Their very existence helps to reinforce one of the long-standing credos of this blog: Whatever world opinion is on any given subject, go with the opposite.
Indeed, if the United Nations actually were relevant, this would (or could) be bigger news than it actually is.
Instead, it serves as just another nugget from the “What Else Is New?” file.
The UN Human Rights Council has just been enriched by the inclusion of no less than seven nations who have extensive track records of human rights violations.
Seven countries accused of human rights violations have won seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council in an uncontested election, including Libya, Angola and Malaysia.
The U.N. General Assembly on Thursday approved all 14 candidates for the 14 seats on the 47-member council by wide margins.
By wide margins, mind you.
Human rights groups criticized the poor human rights records of seven countries that won seats – Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Mauritania and Qatar.
The seven other countries that won seats were Maldives, Ecuador, Guatemala, Spain, Switzerland, Moldova and Poland.
The 14 countries will serve three-year terms on the Geneva-based council, which was created in March 2006 to replace the U.N.’s widely discredited and highly politicized Human Rights Commission.
It’s good to see that the dark days of the “widely discredited” Human Rights Commission are well behind us, and that the new era of the Human Rights Council is in full swing with the addition of such nations as Libya and Angola to the council.
Knowing Uganda will be part of the Council solidifies it for me.
FYI: Of the 40 censure resolutions adopted by the new and improved Human Rights Council since its inception, 33 have been directed at Israel. That’s 33 more resolutions than have targeted Iran.
Incidentally, Iran was recently appointed to the UN Women’s Rights Commission.
In other news, experts are baffled as to why incidents of crime have escalated at the hen house ever since the fox took over security there.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 14, 2010
He’s questioned the wisdom and constitutionality of the law. He’s conceded that the law is not racist by motivation, but is concerned that it could lead to racial profiling. He’s worried that “people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done.” He’s called Arizona’s new immigration law “unfortunate” and expressed alarm that it “could lead to potential abuse and create a wedge between law enforcement and the community.”
The Attorney General of the United States is clearly troubled by developments in the great Grand Canyon State.
Indeed, Eric Holder sounds like a man who knows the law inside and out – a man who has picked the controversial measure apart with a fine-tooth judicial comb. He sounds like someone who comes to the table well-prepared to back up his claims, armed to the teeth with key phrases and clauses taken directly from the language of the law that give his concerns credence and legitimacy.
After all, when the chief law enforcement officer of the United States opens his mouth on matters of law, isn’t it reasonable that we expect him to know what he’s talking about?
Perhaps we expect too much.
It turns out that the Attorney General of the United States – ever-quick to open his cake hole and proffer commentary on the new Arizona illegal alien law – hasn’t even read the thing.
From the Washington Times:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.
Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama’s request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.
“I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
He heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another that the new Arizona law could be trouble. Thus, based on hearsay, America’s top law man felt he knew enough about it to publicly tender his opinion and concerns on the matter.
Nice job, Eric.
Note that the Attorney General said he was not in a position to say exactly what his position on the subject was, even though he did just that on several occasions.
Welcome to the golden days of the Messianic Age.
America can rest easy knowing that Eric Holder “expects” to plow through the voluminous ten pages that comprise the text of the Arizona law soon.
We are in good hands.
Take a “warm and fuzzy” out of petty cash.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 14, 2010
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 13, 2010
And so it is that the “international” city of Los Angeles, a city of “immigrants” – and the second largest city in the United States – has decided that it is willing to “punish” the everyday, hard-working people of the State of Arizona by boycotting businesses in that state.
After an emotion-drenched discussion filled with tales of immigrant ancestors, sob stories, and other irrelevant heart-string yankings, the City Council of the City of Angels voted almost unanimously (13-1) to say “no” to dealing with businesses based in the Grand Canyon State.
Thus, if that fourteen-member group of elected catatonics achieves their desired result, people who legally work in the State of Arizona (including Latinos, blacks, Orientals, etc) – those who actually rely on interstate business – will be made to suffer. In the Utopian world of the LA City Council, the working class people of Arizona – citizens and legal aliens alike – who make their living in the hotels, resorts, restaurants and tourist spots of that state will have to pay the price for those who are here illegally because a group a morally confused imbeciles think they are standing up for what’s right.
And yet, the open-borders crowd doesn’t give a damn about any of that. The “pathway to citizenship” jockeys couldn’t care less about the consequences of their actions. The very people who, time after time, claim to be for the working people – the “everyday regular folks” – don’t give a rat’s rear end who might suffer as a result of their numskulled, knee-jerk boycott of Arizona.
That these elected Los Angeles screaming meemies are tossing excrement on fellow citizens and legal immigrants means nothing to them. That they make up a painfully small minority of Americans who believe the Arizona law is wrong doesn’t daunt them. That their misguided and ill-conceived notions will only backfire on them doesn’t deter their march to the hallowed Gates of Idiocy. They have bought into the entire “international city” crap, rooted in the belief held by many that the land comprising much of the Southwestern United States is still “occupied” territory.
And all because the State of Arizona is finally enforcing existing law.
Isn’t it ironic that the very people who believe that Americans should be required by law to have health insurance – and be able to prove it or be punished – are the same ones who have conniptions at the mention of people being required to present paperwork to law enforcement officials to prove their legal status?
Mark my words on this … the American Latino community will stand up and support the State of Arizona. When it becomes evident, as is starting to happen now, that the law is in place to protect all American citizens, as well as legal immigrants (including Latinos), they will stand up in favor of the new measure. When it becomes obvious that the new law has nothing to do with ethnicity or race, they will support what is right.
Personally, I am convinced that this moronic boycott will have little, if any, effect on Arizona’s economy. If people want to go to Arizona and patronize their businesses – or conduct business online with companies based in Arizona – they will. Most people are not on board with the Los Angeles City Council. Every poll under the sun confirms that.
Besides, many of us will make it our business to seek out companies based there to show our support.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 13, 2010
I accept that this may sound a tad bizarre to some – perhaps outrageous – but I must confess: In the past, on several occasions, I have actually been required to produce appropriate identification at the bank to cash a check. Likewise, I’ve had to do the same thing when renewing my automobile registration. Believe it or not, I’ve even had to furnish an ID when picking up a package at the Post Office.
I’m not making any of this up.
And if I may so bold as to breech the limits of reason – brace yourselves – I have, more than once, had to show my drivers license to a police officer when asked to do so.
I’m not on drugs.
Yes, I know it sounds as if I may have passed through the looking glass into some Stalinist nightmare, but it’s the reality of my life. In fact, I’m willing to wager that I’m not the only citizen of the United States of America who has had to present some sort of paperwork to someone in an authoritative capacity at some point in his life.
Maybe that’s why nearly three-quarters of all Americans – repeat, three-quarters of all Americans – have absolutely no problem requiring people to produce legal documents to verify their legal status in this country.
In fact, a little better than two-thirds of all Americans believe that it is perfectly okay for police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status.
And if I may further aggravate those on the left – along with nervous conservatives – by gently twisting the knife in their collective gut a little more, six in ten Americans think the police should have the right to question anyone they believe may be in the country illegally.
So much for conventional wisdom, eh?
As I’ve written on several occasions – and as I will continue to write about whenever there is further vindication on this matter – there is “broad approval” across the United States for Arizona’s new illegal alien law. A new poll by the Pew Research Center confirms this.
The public broadly supports a new Arizona law aimed at dealing with illegal immigration and the law’s provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people who are suspected of being in the country illegally.
Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.
After being asked about the law’s provisions, 59% say that, considering everything, they approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law while 32% disapprove.
Not surprisingly, approval of Arizona’s controversial new law goes up as the ages of those being asked about it increases.
If public opinion does shift on this law, it will do so in favor of it.
Meanwhile, the incalculable idiocy of the left continues to shine. Protests and boycotts are being staged against Arizona because that state decided to enforce existing law. Local governments across the map are threatening to stop doing business with Arizona-based companies because that state is doing what the feds won’t – enforce existing law. In Highland Park, Illinois, school administrators at Highland Park High School are lobbying for a spot in the Moonbat Hall Of Fame by canceling the girls basketball team trip to Arizona to participate in a tournament there. Why? Because Arizona is finally enforcing existing law.
District 113 assistant superintendent Suzan Hebson says the trip “would not be aligned with our beliefs and values.”
This was the team’s first conference title in 26 years, but because Arizona is enforcing exisiting law, the girls will miss out..
This is the kind of irrational lunacy that defines the left.
Incidentally, only one-fourth of all Americans approve of how Barack Obama is handling immigration.
I had no idea he had that many relatives in this country.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 13, 2010
You can’t make it up.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 12, 2010
Wow, did USA Today get it wrong.
I mean they really got it wrong.
Allow me to infuse the words “deceptive” and “selective” into the discussion to help paint the picture.
Someone at USA Today ought to send Dennis Cauchon, author of the article “Tax Bills in 2009 At Lowest level Since 1950,” to bed without any MSNBC.
Yesterday, he wrote:
Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman’s presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found. Some conservative political movements such as the “Tea Party” have criticized federal spending as being out of control.
Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.
Let’s mix in a few facts for Mr. Cauchon and all salivating lefties.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reports that personal income in the United States totaled $12 trillion in 2009. Personal taxes were $1.1 trillion. True to Couchon’s report, that comes out to 9.2%.
But for some reason, Mr. Cauchin chose not include payroll taxes (Medicare, Social Security, etc) in his calculations – almost $1 trillion. (Yes, those are taxes. If it looks like a tax and acts like a tax …) That boosts 2009 tax revenue to the federal government to $2 billion.
Add to that state and local tax receipts – $1.2 trillion – and you’re looking at over $3 trillion in taxes being paid by Americans.
That brings the true percentage of income going to taxes to nearly 27%.
Keep in mind that “personal taxes” do not include sales taxes, corporate income taxes and estate taxes either.
But what is most relevant here is that all of the spending (and proposed spending) taking place under Barack Obama will have to be paid for at some point. The bill will come due. Tea Partiers have the foresight to know that. They resent the fact that Barack Obama portrays the current generation of Americans as too soft and unresilient to weather an economic downturn. They resent the fact that Barack Obama has no problem laying this generation’s burdens on the shoulders of future generations – including those yet-to-be-born – so that we might have it easier now.
According to the BEA, government spending as a percentage of national income was over 40% last year – the highest it has ever been – and you can bet the deed to the farm that it will not be going down with Barack Obama at the helm.
Someone is going to have to pay for his unprecedented – and crippling – expansion of government.
Certainly Mr. Cauchon could have found space for that in his article, no?
Besides, with the true unemployment number at around 17%, and almost half of all working people not paying federal income taxes to begin with, it’s easy to explain why tax receipts may be down during a recession.
The fact is, public spending has jumped from about 35% to nearly 44% of GDP in three years. The debt has jumped from 40% to 60% of GDP during the same period. Most public employee pensions are severely underfunded.
Still, Dems are celebrating today.
Said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “Because of changes Democrats have made in tax policy, more than 100 million Americans have more money to support their families, consumers have more to spend at local businesses and our middle class is reaping the rewards.”
Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up and still have it be believable.
Democrats have not lowered a single tax rate. No one’s tax rate has gone down since Barack Obama took office. No one is keeping more of their own money. The “Making Work Pay” so-called tax “cut” is really a tax credit … and there is a huge difference. In short, Barack Obama has redefined the term “tax cut” to include “tax credits” and redistribution.
Definitionally, a tax cut means that one is actually keeping more of the money he or she earns so that it can be spent in any way he or she sees fit.
Tax credits, by contrast, are monies taken from the Treasury and distributed to citizens for meeting certain criteria. The fact that millions and millions of Americans received Obama cash in the guise of a “tax cut” when they did not pay federal income tax proves, by definition, that the term “tax cut” is a bogus one.
Even USA Today confuses the terms “cut” and “credit” in their story:
One-third of last year’s $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.
Despite Couchon’s attempted cleverness, the two words are not interchangeable.
If the story in USA Today was meant to deal a harsh blow to Tea Partiers and limited-government types (like myself) who regularly bash the savior and his moves toward a soft tyranny, it surely didn’t work, despite a valiant effort.
Next time, load the gun.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 11, 2010
In commenting on the resignation of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (and the ascendancy of the Conservative Party’s David Cameron to the slot), ZIP at the great Weasel Zippers blog writes: “I sense a box of DVDs and an iPod of Obama speeches in David Cameron’s future… “
While it is a great line I wish I would have thought of – or at least posted first – I think ZIP (with all due respect) may be slightly wrong on this one.
Remember, Barack Obama is not exactly a giver – unless, of course, you classify a fake eight-dollar-a-month tax “cut” funded by the rich as “giving.” He’s not exactly thoughtful – unless you consider his ability to woosh his head effortlessly from the left teleprompter to the right as contemplative.
Seeing as Barack Obama is a proponent of spreading the wealth, I predict that the President of the United States will ask Gordon Brown for the box of DVDs back so that he might redistribute them to David Cameron.
And in the spirit of friendship and narcissism, Obama may even update the collection with a few new titles:
–“The Great Obama Faintings of Campaign ’08.”
-“The Waters That I Walk Upon – How Humility Made Me The Most Important Human Being That Has Ever Lived. (The Barack Obama Story)”
-“How I Made The American Constitution Fall Down And Go Bam.”
Reports that the White House has been calling around for the best international shipping rates so that the HMS Resolute desk can be sent back to Queen Victoria in London cannot be confirmed.
President Obama is expected to be informed that Queen Victoria died in 1901 later today.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 11, 2010
The way it works is this: Some cockamamie, rattlebrained notion from the left becomes the latest and greatest peril facing some (or all) of humankind (o-zone depletion, the heterosexual AIDS epidemic in America, global cooling, overpopulation, DDT, food depletion, the drying up of natural resources, breast implants, etc). It is presented in such a way as to sound remarkably sensible and entirely probable. For a given period of time, it saturates all forms of media, and eventually, through sheer repetition, is accepted as absolute fact. The bulk of humanity, without bothering to delve into the matter at any great length -and fearful that yet another threat to their very existence is upon them- buys into the hysteria.
Then, unconvinced members of the thinking class suddenly begin to emerge. They offer reasoned counter arguments, based not on emotion or agenda, but on common sense and scientific skepticism. They attempt to further the discussion and offer arguments from the opposite side. They are quickly dismissed at first as mere contrarians or attention-seeking rabble rousers. They are ridiculed and shunned.
Yet, these rapscallions – these troublemakers – are persistent.
Over time, an increasing number of people are listening to these skeptical ones and begin to question the original hysteria.
Many of these skeptics aren’t even denying that there may be some truth in the original claims, but they’re unwilling to accept that the “debate is over.” They continue presenting alternative arguments.
This shakes the original peril-peddlers to their core. They are stunned to find their notions being challenged.
They push back.
Eventually, reasonability begins to win the day with almost everyone, save for the hardcore doomsday set and the mainstream media. They remain steadfast, trying to convince those who have veered from the reservation that all the contradictory evidence that seemingly refutes their original assertion is actually a natural result of it (conveniently).
It is their last gasp of desperation.
Then it happens – the natural and inevitable “next step” of elite liberals who are confronted with the cold, hard reality that their assertions are without substance.
They inform those of us who don’t buy into their frenzied fairytales that we haven’t the intellectual capacity to really understand what they are trying to say – that we just aren’t smart enough to truly understand the reality of the situation.
We’re too dumb to get it.
So contends Missouri Congressman, Emanuel Cleaver. (Care to take a guess what political party he is a member of?)
The entire global warming discussion, he says, needs to be dumbed down so that we – the cerbral plebeians with no real regard for Mother Earth – can actually comprehend it.
Christopher Neefus of CNSNews.com writes:
Americans are growing skeptical about the threat of global warming because “they don’t get” the complex information that scientists deliver, according to Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).
Unless scientists can simplify their arguments to the level of newspapers that “print at the sixth grade level,” Cleaver said, the public is “going to get a headache and bail out.”
Cleaver made his comments to a panel of scientists on Capitol Hill at a hearing last Thursday of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
The committee was investigating the “foundation” of climate science after the Climategate scandal saw thousands of damaging e-mails leaked from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
“I think the newspapers are supposed to be printed at the sixth grade level and I think with something as important as (global warming), we’ve got to figure out how to simplify the language for the public, because otherwise they’re going to get a headache and bail out because they — not because they’re not concerned, but because they don’t get it.”
It’s always us.
Ask any liberal and he or she will tell you so.
Everey facet of this society – from supermarket flyers to television commercials, from movies and songs to sermons in houses of worship, from billboards and magazines to school ciricullae – has been inundated with nonstop “climate change” gobbledygook for nearly two decades. With every turn, every step, every blink of an eye, we are bombarded with “global warming” this and “save the planet” that. It simply isn’t plausible to believe that every bit of “global warming” propaganda that has deluged our senses for the last twenty years or more is all so intellectually advanced and complex that we just don’t get it – unless you’re a liberal, of course.
In that case, there hasn’t been enough done.
That’s the way it is with all of liberalism. If something doesn’t work, do more of it.
It defies all logic to believe that twenty-plus years of constant “go green” rhetoric, carbon footprint yammerings, melting iceberg warnings, disappearing polar bear cacklings, rising sea level talk, and every other nugget of “global warming” hysteria that has pummeled us like a thousand runaway freight trains barreling downhill has been so scholarly and cerebral that it has all gone over our heads.
That, dear friends, is elitism at its very core. (Feel free to substitute “elitism” with “liberalism,” if you like).
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 10, 2010
From the “Are You Surprised?” file …
Indeed, there won’t be much need for me – or anyone else for that matter – to spend a whole lot of time on Barack Obama’s latest Supreme Court nomination, Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
She doesn’t have nearly the ideological baggage that President Obama’s previous nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, had, yet recall how easily Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate. Recall that despite saying she hoped to make better decisions as a Latina than a white man, Sotomayor sailed through. Despite asserting that the Constitution of the United States does not protect the right to keep and bear arms against infringement by state and local governments, Sotomayor passed muster. Despite admitting that racial statistics are more important to her than merit, Sotomayor got the gig.
Kagan is a shoo-in.
But for the record – for those who came in after the opening credits – let me be clear: Elena Kagan is a liberal.
Shocked, are you?
Oh sure, she’s a charmer. She’s endeared herself to many right-of-center. But make no mistake, she’s got her tootsies formly planted on the left.
True, Kagan’s never been a judge – which conveniently means there will be no judicial paper trail to dissect – but seeing as she pushed to keep military recruiters off of the Harvard Law School campus when she was the dean pretty much says everything you need to know about where she’s coming from. To her, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was – and still is – a moral injustice of the first order. I think she used the word “repugnant.”
Fox News reports: “Democrats … may like that Kagan is known for her ability to coalesce opposing sides and the fact that when she worked for President Clinton, she successfully negotiated with Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) for federal authority to control the sale of cigarettes.”
This will afford the mainstream media the opportunity to portray Kagan as a moderate, middle-of-the-road, seeing-all-sides, open-minded breath of fresh air. The phrase “consensus builder” will be a big one over the next several weeks.
Of course, getting John McCain to successfully “negotiate” with Democrats is like getting a child to eat cookies for supper.
There will be much said about Kagan over the ensuing days and weeks. Her name will be all over the news for a while … and, unfortunately, unless it is discovered that she regularly used non-biodegradable paper bags at the supermarket instead of reusable green-friendly carry sacks, she will be become Barack Obama’s second Supreme Court nominee to hit the bench.
Besides, Kagan adores barack Obama. She is enamored with all of the “rock star qualities he has.” She is mezmerized by “the eloquence, the magnitism, the great looks, the brilliance” of Barack Obama.
And Barack Obama loves being adored.
It’s a match made in heaven … or at the Waffle House.
If President McCain was the one making the nomination today, you can rest assured that the Leftocrat blogosphere would be in red-alert conniption mode .
If only it were so.
There is no legacy for a President of the United States as critical – or far reaching – as who he or she nominates to the Supreme Court.
Elections really matter.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 10, 2010
The threat is nonexistent. It is inconceivable that a band of disgruntled sword-swinging Jesus-loving zealots would exact their revenge against those who would portray Christ in a less-than-godly light. The possibility of retribution is so infinitesimal – if that – that there is not a scintilla of worry, fear, apprehension or trepidation among those who would create entertainment that depicts Jesus Christ in a non-flattering, or decidedly insulting, manner.
Why would there be?
Christians do not threaten violence at offensive and insolent characterizations of Jesus, nor do they demand that others adhere to their beliefs and practices. Those who convince themselves that the cutting edge of comedy is at its sharpest and most relevant when Christianity is the target will not have to look over their shoulders for cross-bearing throat-cutters or under their cars for explosive devices.
It is the reality.
And so it is that one of the latest projects in the works at the ever-courageous Comedy Central Network is a cartoon about a “regular guy” who moves to New York to get out from under his father’s “enormous shadow.”
It’s called “JC.”
The “regular guy” in question is Jesus Christ, and his dad is God.
I’m laughing already.
Where do these provocateurs come up with their ground-breaking ideas?
This is the same network that decided against airing a scene from the program “South Park” depicting Muhammed in a bear costume for fear of being targeted by Islamist terrorists … although that wasn’t the official explanation.
Something about not wanting to offend people, blah, blah, blah …
Yet, the new Jesus project is said to be in development.
David Bauder of the Associated Press writes:
(JC’s) father is presented as an apathetic man who would rather play video games than listen to his son talk about his new life, according to Comedy Central’s thumbnail sketch of the idea. Reveille, the production company behind “The Office,” “Ugly Betty” and “The Biggest Loser,” is making “JC.”
It wouldn’t be the first time Jesus Christ has been on a Comedy Central cartoon; he’s a recurring character on the long-running “South Park.”
Whenever “South Park” features Muhammad in an episode, Comedy Central obscures the character with a black box; Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous. Following the Internet threat, Comedy Central angered “South Park” producers by editing out a character’s speech about intimidation in a subsequent episode.
“It’s not certain what is more despicable: the nonstop Christian bashing featured on the network, or Comedy Central’s decision to censor all depictions of Muhammad,” said William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, on Thursday.
Comedy Central wouldn’t comment on Donohue’s statement, said network spokesman Tony Fox, who declined to give further details about “JC.”
From a personal perspective, what is most frustrating of all is the fact that all of the ideas I have submitted to Comedy Central for an exciting new cartoon series will never be considered.
One idea I had was a cartoon called “Dr. Jihad and Mr. Hyde.” It was the story of a young man torn between his love for the environment and his desire to blow up American school children. While his inclination is to pursue a life of environmental activism, each morning the hilarity ensues as Muhammed appears in his bathroom on a bar of Irish Spring soap, commanding him to slit the throats of local second graders.
It’s nonstop madcap hijynx.
Another idea I had was a series called “All In The Fatwah” – the story of the generation gap between Muhammed and one of his child brides, set in the early 7th century in a suburb of Mecca. The premise is that while Muhammed is out trying to bring the world to Allah, he still has to come home every night and contend with a wife who is barely old enough to dress herself.
It’s comedy gold.
Meanwhile, Muhammed’s daughter (from another wife) moves in with her Christian husband, much to the chagrin of Muhammed. Muhammed refers to him as “Falafel-Head.”
The possibilities are endless.
Yet another idea I had was insprired by Elton John’s recent assertion that Jesus Christ was gay. It was a story of conflicting value systems set in an artsy section of Medina, called “Muhammed’s Rainbow.”
There were a few others, but I haven’t really developed them yet.
Maybe HBO will give some of my ideas a shot.
Oh wait, they have Bill Maher.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 8, 2010
Who have been the stone and brick throwers? Who have been the ones chaining themselves together in circles in the street blocking traffic? Who have been the ones vandalizing businesses? Who have been hurling bottles at police? Which protestors have been regularly resorting to violence?
Tea Partiers? Or illegal immigrants and their supporters?
Who have taken to shooting up military installations and opening fire at recruiting stations on American soil? Which group of people has attempted to blow up Times Square, Los Angeles Airport, the Brooklyn Bridge and several in-flight airplanes? Which people are hell-bent on murdering innocents?
Tea Partiers? Or Islamist terrorists?
Before you venture to answer that question, you probably ought to check with Democrat Congressman Andre Carson from Indiana. In discussing Tea Partiers who had gathered in Washington to protest Obamacare, the following exchange took place with a reporter on March 20th:
REPORTER: Do you think the people outside are dangerous?
CARSON: Oh, absolutely. I worked in Homeland Security. I come from Intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security – I mean, terrorism has an Islamic face – it really comes from racial supremacist groups. This kind of animosity, it’s the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record.
REPORTER: From groups like this?
CARSON: Oh absolutely.
This is the same man who, when asked to enumerate America’s greatest threats, listed racism and terrorism … in that order.
Racism, in the world of Andre Carson, is at least as serious a threat to national security as are Islamist terrorists and illegal aliens.
And he means it.
According to Carson, the threat to this nation’s security posed by Tea Partiers cannot be overemphasized. He should know. After all, he was in Intelligence … so to speak.
This is example 12,917 of why liberals (and other children) cannot be trusted with national security.
And speaking of fear mongering … Let us not forget that President Barack Obama – the unifier, the great orator and soother – rewrote Chapters 2 through 5 in the Little Fear Mongerers Companion and Workbook when he said:
You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re gonna be harassed. That’s something that could potentially happen. That’s not the right way to go.
And no one – no one – in the mainstream gerbil cage has the avocados to challenge him on such an absurd and irresponsible statement.
It’s a disgusting lie, Mr. President.
A disgusting lie, Mr. Race Baiter.
…with all due respect.
H/T to the great Say Anything blog.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, illegal immigration, national security, Tea Party | Tagged: Andrew Carson, illegal aliens, Islamo facism, national security, Obamacare, Tea Partiers, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 7, 2010
And so it is that as the mainstream media continues to depict opposition to the Arizona illegal immigration law as pervasive and typical of American sentiment, reality paints an entirely different picture. As the clacking tongues, chattering skulls and rat-a-tatters of the left continue to throw cameras on every banner bouncing human rights advocate calling the new law Nazi-like – and as the media inexplicably continues to approach swindling race-baiting merchants like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for their opinions – a different story unfolds. Despite the predictable (and pathetic) attempts by Obamacrats to construct an alternate reality, the fact of the matter is: Americans – the least racist and most accommodating people on planet Earth – agree with what Arizona did.
Of course, we’ve known this for days now. Every poll that has been taken on the matter confirms that Americans side with the actions taken by the Governor and law makers of Arizona. Even after the May day marches – rife with communists, totalitarians, enviro-freaks, entitlement-happy illegals and rapidly deteriorating hippies – Americans have not shifted on the matter.
Nor will they.
According to a new Fox News poll, by a margin of better than two to one, Americans believe that Arizona was absolutely correct in dealing with the matter on its own. 61% of voters say it was the right thing to do, while only 27% say it should have been left to Washington to take care of.
Unfortunately, the sad reality is that from one administration to the next, without fail, Washington has been as effective as a breast pump trying to extract oil from a well. Tossing around meaningless terms like “pathways to citizenship” and “comprehensive reform” have done nothing to affect substantive change. Illegals continue to drain American resources and service, take jobs away from Americans, and commit crimes – including murder.
These realities, apparently, are not sufficient enough for the White House to risk offending a minority voting block.
It would be interesting, if not instructive, to question some of the 27% who still believe it is best to let Washington handle it.
Indeed, Washington should be taking charge on this matter, but they haven’t … and they won’t. Voting block appeasement has a better payoff then protecting citizens.
Dana Blanton of Fox News breaks down the new poll:
Most American voters think Arizona was right to pass its own immigration law, and think the Obama administration should wait and see how the new law works rather than try to stop it, according to a Fox News poll released Friday.
Most Republicans (77 percent) and independents (72 percent) support Arizona taking action. Democrats are divided: 43 percent think the state was right, while 41 percent think Arizona should have let the federal government take the lead.
Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said Arizona had to act because Washington has failed to stop the stream of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Demonstrators and others opposed to the new law have called on President Obama to stop it from being implemented. The president has said the law is “misguided,” and called on the Justice Department to examine it.
Significantly more voters think the Obama administration should wait and see how the new law works (64 percent) than think the administration should try to stop it (15 percent).
To varying degrees, majorities of Democrats (52 percent), Republicans (77 percent) and independents (68 percent) think the White House should see how the law works.
The poll goes on to reveal that an overwhelming vast majority of Americans – eight in ten – not only believe that the National Guard should be employed to help border patrol agents, but that fines and criminal charges should be leveled against those who hire illegal aliens.
As I’ve said over and over again ever since the law in Arizona was passed – and as I will continue to assert until my keyboard is blue in the keys – this issue is not a loser for Republicans. Only Republicans themselves will be losers if they continue to evade conservatism for some phantom all-encompassing, everyone-will-love-us-if-we-stay-in-the-squishy-middle style of politics.
Just ask President McCain.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 7, 2010
Pundit after pundit, analyst after analyst – including many on the right – have pontificated that a second Obama term would all but be assured, regardless of whatever else was happening, if the economy improved. That was the criterion, according to many – the benchmark – for stretching four agonizing years into eight calamitous ones.
However, with the President’s approval numbers continuing to spread roots below the fifty percent line, a new poll suggests that even with an improving economy, people may not want to catch a Bammy return engagement.
Redi Wilson at National Journal.com writes:
American voters are more confident that the economy will improve in the next year, but trust in major institutions continues to fall — a slump that mirrors Pres. Obama’s tumbling approval rating.
Seven in 10 voters say the economy will improve over the next 12 months, according to the new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll, while just 27% believe the economy will worsen. But 56% of voters say they have less confidence that elected officials in DC will make good financial and economic decisions.
I hate to interrupt a perfectly good article, but I’d be very interested in knowing exactly what it is that leads 70% of the population to think that the economy will improve over the next year. What, pray tell, is that based on?
Voters also say they have less confidence than they did a year ago in major corporations (50% say they are less confident), investment banks (55%) and national banks (51%) to make wise fiscal decisions.
As trust in national institutions falls, so has Obama’s approval rating. Just 48% approve of the job Obama is doing, while 46% disapprove, the poll shows. That’s down from a 61% approval rating Obama sported in an Allstate/National Journal poll conducted in April ’09.
Only 39% of voters said they would vote to re-elect Pres. Obama if the election were held today, while 50% say they would vote for someone else. A quarter of voters would definitely vote to re-elect Obama, while 37% would definitely vote for someone else.
So much for the “An-Improved-Economy-Means-An-Obama-Two-Term-Lock” theory.
Most people understand that if the economy begins to to recuperate – and we all hope it does – it will have little, if anything, to do with President Obama and his bankrupting, free-market-crushing crusades. The economy, if it improves, will do so in spite of Chicago’s most famous metrosexual.
The real question – the real story here – concerns Barack Obama’s approval rating versus his potential re-election numbers.
How is it that 48% of Americans still approve of the job he is doing, but only 39% approve enough to say they would re-elect him?
I guess approval doesn’t always mean you approve.
Even more brain-bending than that is the fact that four in ten Americans said they’d sign up for an Obama Book II.
Four in ten?
Based on what?
Who are these people, and are the hallucinogens they are receiving free through some government-sponsored health plan?
I’d love to be introduced to some of these folks. I have an overflow of Wyoming ocean front property I need to unload.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 6, 2010
I’m asking the following questions as a white man.
If I said I refused to drive my car in parts of Bensonhurst, Brooklyn because there are too many Orientals there – and I defend my position by asserting that Orientals are horrible drivers – would I be branded a racist?
If I said that I wouldn’t walk around the South Bronx after Sunset because it is a predominantly black neighborhood – and I defend that position by asserting that I wouldn’t be safe there – would I be branded a racist?
If I were the assistant-principal of a school and told students who were wearing American flag t-shirts to go home because it could instigate Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo, suggesting that Mexicans are easily prone to violence, would I be branded a racist?
The answer to all would be “yes.”
Now, let’s focus specifically on question number three.
If, for the sake argument (using a liberal mindset), I am a non-white Hispanic, or a Latino who does not self-identify culturally as “white,” do I suddenly lose my “racist” label for sending home kids who dared to wear the American flag on Cinco de Mayo?
The answer is also “yes.”
I suddenly become a culturally-sensitive school administrator looking out for the well-being of his student body.
To the best of my knowledge – and despite attempts by the young metrosexual from Chicago to transform things – this is still the United States of America. The stars and stripes are still the emblem of this land of liberty. Red, white and blue are the colors on this nation’s flag – one that waves in front of every public school in the country.
Yet, five boys from Morgan Hill, California – including two of part-Mexican ancestry – were sent home from school yesterday because they had the nerve to wear the clothing that depicted the flag of their own country on that sacred of all American holidays (next to Earth Day), Cinco de Mayo.
Kiet Do, of CBS 5 in San Francisco reports:
On Cinco de Mayo, five Morgan Hill high school students came to school in red, white and blue, and got a very public lesson in school politics and free speech.
The boys came to Live Oak High School on the Mexican holiday, wearing t-shirts, shorts and shoes emblazoned with American flags.
Around 10 a.m., the assistant principal told sophomore Matthew Dariano he had to remove his bandana, which is against school policy.
But then Dariano said the assistant principal told all him and all his friends to take off their shirts, or turn them inside out, because some Hispanic students were upset and the school feared it would start a fight.
Dariano is part Mexican.
“Our Hispanic vice principal was taking their side, and was thinking that we were being racist towards them, so he was discriminating against us, making us take off our stuff,” Dariano said.
“We’re not trying to start trouble,” said student Austin Carvalho. “We’re in America. We can’t wear our own colors?”
The boys refused to take off the shirts. They were not suspended, but they were sent home.
Referring to his shirt, student Dominic Maciel said, “I think it was disrespectful to my country, if I flip this inside out.” Maciel is also part Mexican.
The parents of the five boys said the school’s decision was un-American.
“You can’t just single out these five. It doesn’t work that way. That’s not what America is about,” said Julie Fagerstrom.
Cinco de Mayo is popular at Live Oak, which is 40 percent Latino. The school even had ethnic dancers perform at lunch.
That certainly explains everything.
Ethnic dancers performed at the school. Cinco de Mayo is popular there. So naturally, it stands to reason that the next logical step is to ban students from wearing or displaying the American flag. In other words, because the Mexican army defeated the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862 over a debt, American flag t-shirts are not to be worn at a public school within the United States of America 148 years after the fact. This is the holiday so revered by so many in this country that to display an American flag on the same day is to be considered invidious and dangerous.
How on earth did I miss that?
Just imagine if a school principal had asked black students to turn their Martin Luther King, Jr. t-shirts inside out for fear of the shirts “starting a fight.”
Such a thing would be inconceivable.
I wonder … was there also a ceremonial American flag burning event in the gym at Live Oak High School?
Was there an “Everybody Is An Illegal Day!” to help create awareness of the sufferings of the “undocumented” class?
This entire episode is akin to celebrating the American victory in the Spanish American War in Norway – and then sending Norwegian kids home for wearing t-shirts with the Norwegian flag on it.
The real question is: How long before the ACLU jumps to the defense of these five kids?
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 6, 2010
Yesterday, as he celebrated Cinco De Mayo, President Barack Obama, in commenting on the new Arizona illegal-immigration law, took a page from the Race Baiters Illustrated Handbook and said the following:
The answer isn’t to undermine fundamental principles that define us as a nation. We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress. We can’t turn law-abiding American citizens and law-abiding immigrants into subjects of suspicion and abuse. We can’t divide the American people that way. That’s not the answer. That’s not who we are.
How ironic it is that those words should spring from the tongue (and teleprompter) of America’s foremost divider.
My question to Barack Obama would be: Mr. President, if the “immigrants,” as you call them, are here illegally – which is what we’re talking about here – how can they be law abiding?
The President is either completely ignorant of the law – and considering his extensive history of speaking before knowing, it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch – or he is flat out lying.
Either way, I must also ask: Precisely what defining “fundamental principles” are being undermined here? The state of Arizona acted as they did because President Barack Obama will not do what it is his Constitutional charge to do: defend the borders. Arizona, like many other states, is being inundated with illegals. Something had to be done.
And it was.
The majority of Americans think it was the right thing to do.
Contrary to Obama’s sloganeering, this nation is not defined by its indisposition to crack down on illegal aliens. This country is not characterized by its propensity to capitulate to whiny special interests who feel they are entitled to break our laws. America is not a more accommodating nation because of our failure (and unwillingness) to enforce illegal immigration statutes.
Yet, in Barack Obama’s world – a world where the word “illegal” and “immigrant” never appear in the same speech, let alone the same sentence – America’s core principles are somehow imperiled here.
Let’s be frank for a moment. No one – least of all illegal aliens (i.e., undocumented Democrats) – can possibly take our illegal immigration policies very seriously. How sincere can this nation really be about addressing this problem when we have sanctuary cities?
What is fundamental is the right of this nation to defend its sovereignty and protect all of its citizenry, regardless of creed, color, race, ethnicity and sex. (Yes libs, that includes Americans of Hispanic ancestry, too). It is simply inconceivable to me that the Commander-In-Chief President cannot – and will not – acknowledge this reality.
Then again, this is Barack Obama.
Also, what is the President talking about when he says that “we can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress”?
Does he realize how tenth-grade-debating-society he sounds? Does he understand how foolishly naïve and ridiculously uninformed he comes across as? He is as obtuse as he is liberal. (Redundant, I know).
Where exactly is this “singling out” happening? Where in this country are people being “singled out” because of what they look like? The preposterousness of the assertion cannot be overstated. The language of the Arizona law is very specific on this. It does not permit Arizona law enforcement officials to simply “single out” people based on looks or accents, despite the President’s race-baiting predications. It is profoundly irresponsible to say so.
Seeing as it is Barack Obama’s responsibility to make sure America’s borders are secure – and seeing as he has done nothing to do so – it is almost burlesque to hear him berate the state of Arizona for finally taking action. Then again, this President is the master at launching attacks against those who have the audacity – the balls, if you will – to oppose him.
How dare we.
Let’s be clear … again … no one is being picked up, stopped, questioned or incarcerated because of the melanin levels in their skin, the accent on their tongue or their style of apparel (although I’m happy to make a case for those teenage boys who can’t seem to pull up their pants).
I’m not sure how many ways it can be expressed, or how many times it must be repeated, but I’ll give it another go: This is not about Hispanics!
This is about entitled liberals wanting the federal government to promote a policy of sympathy toward a specific minority group, despite the law.
This is about the cheap and pugnacious desperation of race-baiting.
This is about an administration effectively saying “to hell with you” to its citizens while mollycoddling genuine lawbreakers.
The only people being subject to “suspicion” and “abuse,” as Bam puts it, are those to have the temerity to stand up and speak out against him (e.g., tea-partiers, talk-radio listeners, conservatives, etc.)
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 5, 2010
There have been a good number of conservative pundits and analysts who have made no bones about the fact that, from a political standpoint, they believe the new Arizona illegal alien law could be trouble for the Republican Party. Concerns range from forever losing the Hispanic vote to diverting attention away from the daily-disaster that is the Obama administration. Good folks on the right worry that a golden opportunity to cause serious political damage to the flailing Dems could be lost if the GOP comes across as too hard-nosed, unwelcoming and uncompassionate on this issue.
This is not your Dad’s immigration debate.
The state of Arizona has changed the rules of the game in a profound – and what I believe will be a most effective – way. In my humblest of opinions, as I have written on several occasions, Arizona’s new focus on enforcing already existing immigration laws will demonstrate that this the best way to deter illegals from coming into the United States today. States that follow Arizona’s lead will see not only a decrease in incoming illegals, but will cause many illegals to emigrate elsewhere or self-deport.
This, of course, does not negate the necessity of a fence along the border. I am a huge proponent of “sealing” the border in whatever way is necessary to protect the United States.
However, deterrence is the key. There can be no doubt about it. The word is out that Arizona is unfriendly to illegals … as it should be.
Not Hispanics. Illegals.
For those on the right who are voicing concerns that the Arizona immigration law could backfire on them, they might find some political comfort in knowing that the issue is actually a winner with Americans – despite mainstream media reports to the contrary.
Jonathon Martin at Politico writes:
The new hard-line Arizona immigration law that has sparked talk of boycotts and caused leading Republicans to fret about the party’s frayed relationship with Hispanic voters may indeed pose a long-term threat to the GOP’s prospects.
But in the here and now — and in many of the most competitive races that will determine control of Congress — the law appears to be a poison-tipped arrow in the Republican quiver.
New polling indicates broad public support for the measure and illustrates the peril embattled Democrats could face this November over the issue.
In the South and Midwest, where some of the most competitive congressional races will be fought, popular sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of the controversial new law.
According to a New York Times/CBS poll released Monday, 69 percent of respondents from the South said that the law is either “about right” or does not go “far enough” and 66 percent from the Midwest said the same. Opinion is more divided in the Northeast and West, but nationwide, 60 percent of respondents said the Arizona measure is about right or doesn’t go far enough.
Expectedly, Republicans tend to favor the Arizona law while Democrats generally oppose it.
Independents side with Republicans on this one.
In short, Republicans side with the law.
Democrats side with undocumented liberals who are pouring over the border.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 5, 2010
Most of thoe scratches will buff right out.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2010
On Sean Hannity’s “Great American Panel” segment of his Fox News Channel program last evening, Bob Beckel – liberal – commented on the individual, Faisal Shahzad, who was arrested yesterday at Kennedy Airport in New York as he tried to leave the country. Shazad is suspected of being the one who tried to set off a bomb-filled SUV in Times Square.
The exchange between Hannity and Beckel went this way:
HANNITY: They have a person of interest, a naturalized American citizen, returned to the country after spending several months in Pakistan. Is it too early to read into that?
BECKEL: I still think the jury is out on this. I think it could be a right-wing militia man involved in this. I mean, you never know.
… because it is apparently just as reasonable to think that a man born in Pakistan, who recently returned from a five-month stay there, could be a disgruntled right-wing New York militia man. It’s at least as reasonable as suggesting that the man could be an Islamist terrorist.
After all, isn’t America teeming with discontented young militia men of Middle Eastern descent who have reached their breaking points in seeing the Constitution tread upon by the likes of Barack Obama? How could anyone not reasonably believe that a man named Faisal Shahzad is anything but a Reagan-loving, Constitution-obsessed conservative who finally snapped as a result of Barack Obama’s attempted transformation of America?
Think back to the Fort Hood terrorist attack perpetrated by Nidal Malik Hasan. He could have had the words “I am a terrorist and I am committing an act of terrorism” emblazoned across his chest and Geraldo Rivera still would have spent his entire program interviewing ex-girlfriends about Hasan’s fragile libido playing a role in the mass murder.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg – the same man who recently said he’d love to see illegal aliens come to New York – instinctively sees it the way Bob Beckel does: When in doubt, think right-wingers first.
Before Shazad was apprehended, the Mayor was interviewed by Katie Couric of CBS News:
KATIE COURIC: Law enforcement officials don’t know who left the Nissan Pathfinder behind, but, at this point, the mayor believes the suspect acted alone.
MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: If I had to guess — 25 cents — this would be exactly that, somebody-
COURIC TO BLOOMBERG: A home-grown?
BLOOMBERG: Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.
… because ever since ObamaCare became law, right-wingers have become dangerously unhinged, setting off bombs, defacing public property, inciting violence from sea to shining sea, triggering a wave of extremist reaction that has liberals terribly worried.
In Bloomberg’s world, the reflexive response is to ask: If it isn’t an ObamaCare dissenter – or someone still mad that a black man (half-white, really) became President – then who on earth could want to blow up Times Square like that? If not a “teabagger,” then what other real possibilities are there?
Well, according the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, this may not have even been a terrorist attack.
On FNC’s Fox and Friends yesterday, she said:
Until we know the perpetrators, the people, person or persons responsible, you don’t know the derivation, you don’t know their intent.
… because it is apparently reasonable to think that this could have been anything but an attempted terrorist attack – like, for instance, a cutting edge promotion by Planet Hollywood to get people to try their “20 wings for $9.99” special, or a “Kick Off May With A Bang” campaign from Payless Shoe Source, hyping their “two-for-one” sneaker sale.
FOX ANCHOR: Clearly the guy was trying to, if not kill people, then scare people, which is terrorism.
NAPOLITANO: Uh, well, uh, and it, and uh, we do know that if that, you know, if the explosions actually had been properly done and ignited, that would have been quite a fireball in that particular area … It was not properly done. It was not effective.
Nothing gets by Janet Napolitano.
Just don’t anyone dare use the words “radicalized Muslim” in this discussion.
Now, to be fair, Mayor Bloomberg this morning did take a step in the right direction by acknowledging that the attempted bombing was, in fact, designed to hurt and kill as many innocents as possible (i.e., a terrorist act), but he was also careful to say, “And I want to make clear that we will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers.”
… because after the 9/11 attacks, New Yorkers – who apparently haven’t the ability to differentiate between those who commit evil acts and those who don’t – went after all Muslims with a ferocity and vengeance that cannot be accurately quantified.
There are still bodies in the streets from that retaliation.
Leave it to Mayor Mike to set us all straight.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2010
This delightful little snapshot, taken during the Los Angeles May Day demonstration on Saturday, is making the rounds this morning across the blogosphere.
If ever there was a photo that required no explanation or commentary, it is this one.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2010
Even the grass is keeping off.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2010
Nineteen years ago today, a pretty girl from the farm country of Northwest Ohio said “I do” when she was asked if she would stand by a boisterous Brooklyn boy in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, and all the rest of it.
She has certainly lived up to her word.
And nineteen years later, she’s still my girl.
We’ve come a long way since pickle juice and chips, haven’t we?
I can hardly wait to see what the next nineteen years brings.
Happy anniversary, Mrs. Roman.
You sure have a lot of nice CDs.
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 3, 2010
You may recall that Phil Hare, Democrat Congressman from Illinois, recently made national news by saying he wasn’t concerned with the Constitution when it came to the health care reform debate (i.e., the implementation of Obamacare). “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest,” the dashing and well-spoken Mr. Hare said with a camera rolling, “I care more about the people that are dying everyday who don’t have health care.”
To hear it from Hare (and his single-payer-loving chums), the streets are littered with the rotting corpses of Americans who couldn’t find an emergency room compassionate enough to spare a Tylenol or band-aid. Fat cat insurance moguls, along with assorted Klansmen and Republicans, confer over charts and maps almost daily, deciding who will be lucky enough to receive the tiniest morsels of health care and who will be denied.
You’ll recall that a colleague of Mr. Hare’s from Florida – the angry and always nauseating Alan Grayson – said it was a modern day Holocaust.
Just to be clear, Mr. Hare … everyone in America has access to health care – including illegal aliens. The debate is about health insurance – but I digress.
After Hare made it perfectly clear that he was beyond worrying about such trivialities and annoyances as the United States Constitution, you may also recall that the man holding the camera – blogger Adam Sharp – followed up by asking him, “You care more about that than the US Constitution that you swore to uphold?”
Hare replied, “I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It was then pointed out to Hare that those words are not in the Constitution, but, rather, in the Declaration of Independence, to which the master parrier, Mr. Hare, retorted, “It doesn’t matter to me.”
I’ll have to confirm this, but, if I recall correctly, the “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness” clause of the Constitution is right after the “Emanations and Penumbras” section – which comes right after the “Separation of Church and State” clause. (Does that mean that in Mr. Hare’s world, abortion is undeniably illegal? After all, there is right to “life” is in his version of the Constitution.)
I digress again …
Running against Phil “The Constitution Doesn’t Matter” Hare in Illinois’ 17th district is Bobby Schilling.
A billboard has gone up in East Moline, Illinois – at 19th Street & 37th Avenue, to be precise – in response to Mr. Hare’s anti-Constitution language, sponsored by veterans who support Mr. Schilling’s bid for Congress.
It is the Roman Around Picture of the Day:
The Constitution matters to a lot of us.